During the 1992 campaign, Ross Perot's solution to many national problems was to gather a group of "world-class" experts and hammer out a solution. Well, on NAFTA, the experts have made their decision, and--surprise, surprise--Perot is on the other side.

In the whirl of claims and counterclaims surrounding the North American Free Trade Agreement, it is easy to lose sight of that very important fact: economists are just about unanimous in their support of this trade agreement.

NAFTA, which the House will consider today, would remove trade barriers between the United States, Canada and Mexico. Because the U.S. already has eliminated barriers with Canada, free trade with Mexico is the central issue at stake.

Labor leaders are skittish about the pact because of what it would do to their members' jobs in the short run. Their central beef is that the economic disparity between the U.S. and Mexico will lead to a mass exodus of American jobs south.

All demagogues use arguments that play upon strong emotions, and Ross Perot is no exception. It is true that removing barriers will encourage some American companies to relocate to Mexico in search of lower wages and less government regulation. These moves will in turn lead to job loss in the U.S., especially in low-skill industries.

But the fundamentals of economics dictate that free trade benefits all countries involved. The advantages of trade unhindered by tariffs will more than offset the job losses in some sectors of the American economy. The enhanced flow of goods to Mexico will create jobs within the U.S. This job production will be in higher wage, higher skill industries-the kind of jobs that America wants in its future.

One of the best reasons to support NAFTA is what it will do for the world. NAFTA could lead to a series of trade agreements around the world that could, in turn, trigger an economic boom in Third World countries.

So if the central question is whether the benefits of NAFTA outweigh the downsides, the answer, given by economists and leaders from all reaches of the political spectrum, is a resounding yes.

As Harvard Assistant Professor of Economics John V. Leahy told The Crimson, "I don't know of anyone who's against it, there's just a general feeling that allowing more opportunity leads to better economics."

Stanfield Professor of International Peace Robert O. Keohane was even more blunt: "Anyone who's taken any economics and understood it is in favor of NAFTA."

All living U.S. presidents and the vast majority of Nobel laureate economists join Harvard's faculty in support of the agreement. This virtual unananimity sharply contrasts the division in the American public and with-in Congress. For legislation with such brain power behind it, NAFTA is in a perilous position. Powerful interest groups and, most conspicuously, Ross Perot's United We Stand, have mounted a fierce battle that has left NAFTA's chances uncertain at best.

When Congress considers NAFTA this week, we hope that it is able to look beyond Perot's scare tactics and the narrow interests of pressure groups to see the good of the nation as a whole. NAFTA is a large step forward, rejecting it would be an even greater step backward.