This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Tuesday, January 29th, 2008. I'm Caleb Brown.

Among the highlights of President Bush's final State of the Union address, a push for a free trade agreement with

Columbia as Hugo Chavez attempts to spread his influence through Latin America

what would an agreement achieve beyond mere free trade? Dan Griswold, the Cato Institute's Director of Trade Policy Studies, responds.

What is controversial about a free trade agreement with Colombia?

It shouldn't be controversial.

It actually doesn't involve that much trade.

We do about $17 billion in two-way trade.

About the same amount of trade we do with Chile, which we have a free trade agreement with.

Last year, the Democratic Congress passed a free trade agreement with Peru, where we do about half the volume of trade.

What's most controversial about it is the

domestic situation in Colombia. It is a violent society and trade unionists have been caught up in the violence there and domestic

US labor unions and particularly the AFL CIO has said we're dead set against this trade

agreement until there's progress on union violence, more progress.

Well, the FLCAO has been against just about every trade agreement that's come down the pike.

Their reasons just shift. But what their objection misses. the

pike reasons just shift. But what their objection misses is the dramatic progress that has been made in Columbia

since really the election of President Uribe in 2002. The murder rates come down 40% since then,

kidnapping is down 80%, and actually assassinations of union members has come

down 80%. I don't know what more progress there could be on the ground

than what we've seen in Columbia in the last five and a half years.

Who is President Uribe? Talk about him.

...