The Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (TPA) has been in the news recently after President George W. Bush, who steadfastly supports it, submitted it to Congress on April 8 for a vote within the next 90 legislative days, as required by the "fast-track" authority under which the United States negotiated the TPA. Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) promptly announced that she would use House rules to prevent a vote on it. Two days later the House voted 224 to 195 to suspend the 90-day timeframe. Some Republican leaders in both Houses of Congress balked at the unprecedented, aggressive manner in which the House used the vote to flaunt the statutory requirements governing trade agreements.
During an election year the Colombia TPA has become a political football. Democrats are opposing it in order to shore up support with their union base prior to the election this November. Democrats claim that Colombia has an organized hit-squad to murder the country's trade unionists. While it is true that many trade unionists were murdered in Colombia in the 1990s, the number has fallen significantly since the turn of the century, as has the overall homicide rate, to the point where it is obvious that there is no such orchestrated campaign and the nationwide homicide rate appears to be less than that of Washington, D.C. Speaker Pelosi's rejection of the TPA on these grounds is tenuous at best. She is doing a disservice to both American and Colombian manufacturers by prohibiting a vote.
Regardless of party preferences, there are several reasons the Senate should ratify the Colombia TPA. First and foremost, free markets benefit consumers. They create more competition, which in turn lowers the prices of commodities. When protectionist barriers are erected in the form of tariffs they hurt the consumer by artificially inflating prices above market value in order to guarantee revenue for certain industries.