WASHINGTON -- The House on Friday rejected legislation that would have given expanded trade-negotiating authority to President Clinton.

The outcome, 243-180, seemed assured in advance, since few lawmakers had switched sides since November, when the same bill was pulled from the House floor before it could be voted down. If anything, the measure had lost support since then.

Clinton badly wants the authority, called fast track, which would allow him to negotiate trade agreements that Congress could accept or reject but not amend. But he did not want Congress to deal with it now.

That is because the vast majority of House Democrats oppose the legislation. Indeed, Democrats voted against the measure Friday, 171-29, and many of them accused Speaker Newt Gingrich of holding a vote on legislation that he knew was doomed, simply to expose Democratic divisions just weeks before the election.

"Why did the speaker insist on bringing up this bill when he knew it was going to fail?" said Rep. David Bonior of Michigan, the Democratic whip.

Taking to the House floor at the end of Friday's four-hour debate, Gingrich angrily rejected the criticisms and accused Democrats of taking orders from labor unions, which are the Democrats' biggest donors and most loyal supporters, and which strongly oppose the measure.

"The real issue is that your unions won't let you vote for free trade," Gingrich said.

In a statement after the vote, Gingrich criticized Clinton for not rallying Democrats to his cause: "Instead of lobbying for fast track, the president neglected our nation's long-term economic health in favor of political fund raising."

The House legislation would have extended the authority that all presidents since Gerald Ford have had in negotiating trade accords that Congress can accept or reject but not amend. Clinton let those powers lapse four years ago rather than risk a vote that would have splintered the Democrats.

Gingrich and his lieutenants twisted arms and lobbied hard for the trade authority this week, but Democrats said it was all show to deflect complaints from business groups and farmers upset that Republicans have balked at providing $18 billion in new financing for the International Monetary Fund.

The speaker flipped the accusations around, warning that a vote against the enhanced trade authority would weaken the United States in the eyes of the world economic community, and further unsettle jittery currencies from Asia to Brazil.

"If this goes down and this ends up in a step toward world recession, some of us will have the comfort to know we cast the right vote," Gingrich said.

Friday's debate was a pale shadow of last November's dramatic confrontation that dealt Clinton one of his most stinging legislative setbacks. But lawmakers went through the motions anyway.

Supporters cast the debate as a choice between protectionism and free trade in an increasingly global marketplace.

"This is an argument between those who believe Americans can compete in the world market and those who believe they can't," said Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., said, "A vote for fast track is a vote for farm families. Trade is one of the most important tools to improve the farm economy."

Democrats retorted that the trade authority failed to ensure that developing nations would uphold labor and environmental standards in their quest to profit in the global market.

"Are we going to let multinational companies bargain down environmental standards around the world in the name of economic competitiveness?" said Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., said that a recent visit to the homes of Mexican factory workers convinced him that "if we don't insist on standards for our brothers and sisters in Mexico, we're next on the chopping block."

Democrats said granting Clinton enhanced trade-negotiating authority would continue to undermine a U.S. job market already suffering from the North American Free Trade Agreement of 1993, a conclusion disputed by Republicans. "NAFTA is hurting hundreds of thousands of people on both sides of the border," Bonior said.

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company