If reason prevailed, the Colombia free-trade agreement would breeze through Congress. Trade with Colombia is not a big deal — barely a rounding error on our nation's trade balance sheet — and American industry might well gain more in sales than it loses.

But it's a presidential election year. Free trade has become a booby trap for Democratic candidates courting blue-collar voters. Knowing that, President George W. Bush invoked his trade authority to try to force Congress to fast-track the deal.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., reacted Wednesday afternoon by changing the House rules and putting the trade agreement on hold. She's hoping to force Bush to rewrite the agreement to include more economic relief for Americans affected by the trade agreement. In the process, Pelosi is providing political cover for the party's presidential candidates., Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Both candidates are trying to finesse records of generally supporting free trade.

The candidates have good reason to fear the wrath of Democratic voters over free trade. Typical American families have spent decades treading water. Their paychecks have risen no more than inflation. With recession looming or already here, they are worried about losing their jobs to cheap foreign labor.

Although America benefits overall from free trade, those profits mostly go to highly skilled workers and the owners of capital. People with lower skills often lose when competing with foreign labor. That is why the American labor movement — a mainstay of the Democratic Party — has become protectionist.

Last week, Bush dumped the 2006 Colombia Free Trade agreement into Congress' lap for ratification. Overall, the agreement probably is a slight win for America.

About 92 percent of Colombian goods already enter the United States tariff-free under the 16-year-old Andean Trade Preferences Act. By contrast, Colombians charge a 15 percent tariff on a heavy-duty tractor made in Peoria, Ill. The new deal might cost the United States somewhat in textile trade and a few other areas, but it will pay off in manufactured goods and food exports.

Congress periodically has renewed Colombia's tariff exemptions. But American labor unions fear that U.S. companies might move operations to Colombia if tariffs are reduced permanently. That fear is unfounded.

Colombia, with 44 million people, is saddled with too many internal problems. American executives are not likely to move a major operation to a country with a deep-rooted civil war fueled by a massive narcotics trade, public safety threats in some regions and international discord, lately with neighboring Venezuela.

Besides, American firms looking for cheap labor these days rarely head to South America. There's plenty to be had in East Asia, Mexico and Central America.

The AFL-CIO makes a valid point about Colombia's dismal record on worker rights. The labor group says 39 Colombian labor activists were murdered last year. That's down from a record 276 killed in 1996. After hearing those complaints, U.S. and Colombian officials added some environmental and labor rules to the proposed agreement. But there's no way that any trade treaty will end Colombia's self-mutilation.

America's trade with Colombia amounts to $18 billion, a mere blip in the nation's $5.4 trillion import and export business. But the Bush administration is right that the new deal could help Colombia out of its economic morass, thus helping hemispheric security. Presidents and would-be presidents have to think like that.