But in the House I voted for fast track because I believe that it is important for us to continue to expand our trade horizons. We are not debating the trade agreement. We have seen lots of things about the trade deficit, balance of trade, and all of these other things. But that is not really at issue here because we are not debating a trade agreement. We are debating really a process--not an agreement. And the process is for the ability of the President to be able to sit down and negotiate a deal that is going to open up markets around the world, hopefully in South America. The Senator from South Carolina said he was ready to vote for an expansion of NAFTA to Chile possibly. We may have that opportunity. I don't think we get to that opportunity, which I think is an important one for this country, unless we have fast-track authority for this President.
On the recordNovember 5, 1997
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the importance of fast-track authority for trade negotiations.
Share
More from Rick Santorum
Jan 5, 2021
Let's try to make it a an opportunity for unity that he wants to accomplish.
Sep 19, 2020
The only reason this was a contentious issue is because there were two different parties and there are two different branches.
Sep 26, 2020
I think a lot of people sort of baked it into the cake that the President is -- you know has some dealings that are, let's just say, not ordinary and that those are things that they've sort of already figured out.
Feb 18, 2020
I think he's going to be a disruptive force. And he's going to be a disruptive force at a time when the President feels like there are people in, you know, in and around who have, you know, not had his back and not been fair to him.





