[P-Marlowe]

But all spending bills need to go before the House, so getting both houses of Congress involved on a trade agreement makes sense.

Spending bills must ORIGINATE in the house.

This "Bill" originated in the Senate, but in fact it originated in the white house. It is not a "bill" anyway, it is a TREATY.

The president negotiates treaties and is supposed to submit them to the Senate for ratification. Once a treaty is signed by the president, the Senate has no authority to change even one word of it. They must pass it by a 2/3 majority or it is dead.

BTW the Congress doesn't care much for the "origination clause" either.

f I recall properly, even trade bills must go to the House, so doesn’t this seem appropriate? It’s not a treaty.

It's a banana.

[ConservativeMind]

None of these bills is a treaty. They can't be, or they would need 2/3rds of the Senate. These are simply trade bills with entities with which we already trade.

Question for you: Did the Senate make treaties for all other trade bills currently in place which allow our present trade?

[philman_36]

It is not a "bill" anyway, it is a TREATY.

An easy way, IMO, of telling the difference between the two...

treaty - subject to international law
executive agreement - subject to domestic law

"Trade/executive" agreements are eventually encoded into domestic law (think NAFTA 19 USC Ch. 21: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE, URAA 19 USC 3511: Approval and entry into force of Uruguay Round Agreements, etc.) and, therefore, are not treaties.

JMO and you may not agree.