with every other trade agreement.
In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively.
In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism. At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties. If an international commercial accord contains binding "treaty" commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. As a result, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
Every trade agreement since the one with Israel in 1975 has been a "congressional-executive agreement" which requires both houses of congress to approve.
It will also be interesting to see if the House approves "fast track" authority. The tea party influence there (with their distrust of Obama and multinational organizations like the UN and the WTO) would seem to make make passage unlikely.
As you posted, the last time TPA passed in the House in 2002 it did so it did so by just 3 votes and that was with a republican president and before the big influx of tea party types. Also the republican congress refused to grant Clinton TPA when it expired during his second term. I don't think they are likely to give it to Obama now.
Without TPA the TPP is a "dead man walking". None of the previous trade agreements passed without TPA. Neither will the TPP.
= new reply since forum marked as read
