D.C. and Puerto Rico have more in common than not

In her May 18 Metro column ["Puerto Rico doesn't even want a vote, but D.C. must wait again?"], Petula Dvorak objected that the House of Representatives passed a bill "inviting Puerto Rico to join the union" after withdrawing legislation to give the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House.

As the author of the Puerto Rico bill, I want to clarify that it does not, in fact, invite the island to join the union. The bill simply authorizes a plebiscite process to ask voters in Puerto Rico whether they want to remain a territory, become a state or become a nation -- either fully independent from or in free association with the United States. The purpose of the bill is to clarify the status options, since there is confusion on the island on this score, and to consult Puerto Ricans on their preference. Even if a majority expresses a desire for statehood, Congress would not be bound by the results.

I support the voting rights bill sponsored by Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), and she co-sponsored my legislation.

Puerto Rico and the District are fighting for the same principle. Puerto Rico is small, but it is home to 4 million U.S. citizens and historically has ranked alongside the top five states in per capita military service. My constituents have no voting representation in Congress and -- unlike D.C. residents -- cannot vote for president. Some note that Puerto Ricans are exempted from certain federal taxes, but we do pay payroll taxes and some of us pay federal income taxes.

I hope that Congress will pass the D.C. voting rights bill, but the disenfranchised residents of the District should empathize with Puerto Rico's plight and celebrate our progress.

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Washington

The writer, a Democrat, is resident commissioner of Puerto Rico to the U.S. Congress.