The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) free trade agreement has been available for more than a month now. While analysts are still sorting through the 30 chapters and more than 100 side letters, many are now weighing in with assessments of the agreement, including whether U.S. industries–and the public–will benefit or lose as a result.
For instance, more than 20 Industry and Agricultural Trade Advisory Committees provided their analyses to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on December 3. Most of the The Industry Trade Advisory Committees (ITACs) endorsed the TPP, although many highlighted specific areas where the final text falls short of U.S. negotiating objectives and could be improved. The Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy came out strongly against the TPP, as expected. The steel and textiles ITACs did not take a consensus position in favor or in opposition to TPP. (Note: I am the vice chair of ITAC 10, the Services and Finance Industries ITAC.)
Think tanks and other analysts are also weighing in. The Petersen Institute of International Economics strongly supports TPP, and in one recent post called U.S. services firms the “neglected winners” of TPP.
House Ways and Means Democrats have held three hearings to date on several controversial aspects of TPP: access to medicines, investment, and the environment. Testimony and video from the hearings are available here.
Once President Obama signs the TPP, which could occur as soon as February 2016, the International Trade Commission (ITC) will conduct a comprehensive analysis of the TPP’s likely economic effects. That study will be due 105 days after the President signs the agreement. The ITC will hold a hearing on the topic on January 13, 2016.