House Approves World Trade Pact : Commerce: The bipartisan 288-146 vote to lower tariffs and boost exports is a major victory for Clinton. But the big test comes Thursday in the Senate.

WASHINGTON —  Casting its curtain-closing vote in the 103rd Congress, the House set aside months of bitter partisanship Tuesday and approved a multinational trade agreement that would slash tariffs and spur commerce around the globe.

The House vote, 288 to 146, gives the White House a significant legislative victory three weeks after nationwide elections brought President Clinton a devastating rebuff at the polls and sends the trade accord to a less certain fate in the Senate.

It also gives lawmakers hope that, on some issues, the new Congress that takes office in January will be able to put aside confrontation and pass legislation.

The vote came after Clinton Administration officials had applied steady pressure on Democrats throughout the day and incoming Republican leaders had rallied their forces. Just 56 of the 177 Republicans voted against the pact, while 89 of 256 House Democrats bucked the White House and opposed passage. Independent Rep. Bernard Sanders of Vermont also voted no.

Among House Republicans, who chafed for one final work day as the minority party, there was evident discomfort at delivering such a victory to Clinton. But Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas) said that GOP leaders were prepared to go along with the White House this time “because the President is right on this issue.”

An unlikely alliance--including conservative Republican commentator Patrick J. Buchanan and independent Texas billionaire Ross Perot--has opposed the agreement, which would create a new World Trade Organization to replace the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade as the regime that governs global commerce.

They have argued that the pact will promote the export of U.S. jobs, erode American laws protecting workers and the environment and hold the United States hostage to the whims of an international trade body unaccountable to U.S. voters.

But Democratic and Republican supporters have countered that the accord, by boosting exports, will create as many as 700,000 new U.S. jobs and increase gross national product by as much as $200 billion a year. California stands to gain $15 billion to $30 billion in new export business and at least 200,000 additional jobs within 10 years, according to the California Council for International Trade.

While citing those figures, Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills) said Tuesday’s vote had a broader significance. It was, he said, “about how the United States will relate to the rest of the world in the years ahead--as an optimistic, confident, competitive leader and trading partner, or a frightened, defeatist and unreliable nation which is unwilling to act in its own best interest and in the interest, as well, of the rest of the world.”

Rep. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.) joined the chorus of those urging approval. “This vote is about America’s standing in the world,” he said. “Whether we are going to lead internationally or whether we are going to put our heads in the sand and retrench.”

The holdouts in Tuesday’s House vote included some of the Republicans’ most ardent conservatives, who charged that the trade accord will erode U.S. sovereignty, as well as many in the House’s liberal camp who said they fear that American jobs will be lost to countries that have few standards protecting their workers from abuse.

The House vote cleared the way for a Senate showdown on the issue Thursday. There, the defections on Tuesday of two key Democrats--Sens. Max Baucus of Montana and Howell Heflin of Alabama--raised new questions about its prospects, although Administration officials continued to predict a narrow victory.

Tuesday’s House vote gave the trade agreement an even wider margin of support than the Administration anticipated and some officials said the victory would buoy supporters in the Senate.

At a morning rally of agriculture groups supporting the pact, Vice President Al Gore predicted that the landmark steps to lower tariffs and cut trade barriers would pass Congress, but he asked supporters to redouble efforts to lobby wavering lawmakers.

“I’m . . . optimistic because the vote counts are coming in in a way that tells us we’re close to victory but we’re not there yet,” Gore said. “We’ve really got to turn it on now.”

Administration officials said they were leaving nothing to chance in either Tuesday’s vote or the more uncertain Senate vote. U.S. Trade Representative Mickey Kantor lobbied lawmakers throughout the day, as did other Cabinet-level officials.

Tuesday’s vote was the first test of cooperation between Democrats and the Republicans who swept the Nov. 8 elections and will take control of Congress next year. Incoming Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) has been working to pass the 124-nation trade agreement.

“To some degree, the more conservative and liberal members came together (in opposition) and the philosophical middle of both parties conjoined,” said Rep. Jim Leach (R-Iowa). “That’s very significant.”

But other lawmakers cautioned that the bipartisan consensus achieved Tuesday will be difficult to reach in other, more politically charged initiatives that Republicans have vowed to pursue.

“The message here is that Congress has decided that free trade makes us all more prosperous,” said Rep. John R. Kasich (R-Ohio). “On this, Democrats and Republicans agree. But we (Republicans) have a game plan and bipartisan cooperation is going to depend on (Democrats’) understanding that we want less government.”

Republicans observed repeatedly that the trade agreement has a Republican pedigree--it was largely negotiated under the Ronald Reagan and George Bush administrations--that made them more comfortable voting for it.

“To the people who have asked me how I can support anything that is supported by President Clinton, I remind them that even a broken clock is right twice a day,” said Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.). “And we must also remember that, while the Clinton Administration may have put the final touches (on the agreement), GATT was the brainchild of President Reagan.”

More on Trade: A special package of articles on the new world trade accord has been adapted for the TimesLink on-line service by the editors of the National Journal. Times on Demand has a reprint available by fax or mail of “After GATT,” a look at the basics of the trade package. Call 808-8463 and press *8630. Order item No. 6021. $1.95. Details on Times electronic services, B4

The Count

The voting on the trade legislation, which would cut tariffs by 38% worldwide:

The House:

Yes: 288

Minimum needed: 218

The Senate

Votes scheduled for Thursday

Minimum needed*: 60

* 50 votes needed to approve agreement, but 60 votes necessary to pass a special procedural motion to bring up the issue.

Vote on World Trade Accord

How members of the California delegation voted on the new world trade agreement:

Democrats for--Becerra, Beilenson, Berman, Brown, Dixon, Dooley, Eshoo, Farr, Fazio, Filner, Harman, Lehman, Martinez, Matsui, Mineta, Pelosi, Roybal-Allard, Schenk, Torres, Waters

Republicans for--Baker, Calvert, Cox, Cunningham, Dreier, Herger, Horn, Huffington, Kim, Lewis, McCandless, McKeon, Packard, Thomas

Democrats against--Condit, Dellums, Edwards, Hamburg, Lantos, Miller, Stark, Tucker, Waxman, Woolsey

Republicans against--Doolittle, Dornan, Gallegly, Hunter, Moorhead, Pombo, Rohrabacher, Royce