AFAIK, the same Congress approved the same deal with Peru just few months ago. IMHO, it gives clearer understanding why Colombian deal is rejected.

>Actually, it is unbalanced now. While our goods are charged a 35% tariff in Columbia, 95% of columbian goods are not here. It would even the trade between the two countries and make it more affordable for columbians to buy American (increasing production and jobs here). Of course, since it wasn't passed, they'll just buy Canadian instead.
>
>It seems the opposition was not the agreement, but the problems with Unions in Columbia. People here don't want more dollars and products going to a country that manhandles its unions. On the other side, supposedly the trade agreement also included union standards that had to be abided by (supposedly helping the unions in Columbia)
>
>I've read arguments for both sides.
>
>
>>I am thinking of the much bigger picture. While I haven't read all the terms of this deal, I would expect that anything labled "Free trade" as in the past means cheaper goods coming into the US.
>>
>>In the bigger picture, this means our nation gets an even bigger percentage of its economy generated by money suffling. I forget the economic term for it. But it basically means an economy that is generated by service type jobs, like what you and I do on a daily basis. But the amount of goods produced each day is less.
>>
>>History has shown that nations that have that type of economy don't last.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040903401.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
>>
>>I need to see the bigger effects of what this agreement entails. Free trade is not the panacea some make it out to be.
>>
>>>Think of the bigger picture Perry. There are many important issues and each one can have repercussions long term for this country - not just our economy but much much more. Granted Iraq is the most important issue today, but that does not mean the others should be disregarded. Don't criticize the current administration on the economy if you don't care when the opportunity to help improve it was shot down.
>>>
>>>
>>>>I still don't get you. You're worried about repercussions over 1 little trade act.
>>>>
>>>>We got this war going on now. And I think you've seen, based on posts from people like Walter, what effect it has caused on world opinion of the US.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>That's what worries me - there could be repercussions on other treaty negotiations going forward because it makes us look untrustworthy.
>>>>>
>>>>>This was a good treaty - it's unbelievable that Pelosi and others played politics with it. I'm getting a little sick and tired of the current Congress changing rules as it fits them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Changing the rules after the fact seems to be a trend with this bunch. However, this time it is not simply affecting a house vote's timing or the Democratic primary, this time they're damaging the ability of the President (office not current occupant) to engage in good-faith treaty negotiations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America."
>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778566399303309.html