House Panel Backs New Rights Bill Opposed by Bush; Showdown Seen : Bias: Democrats stress benefits to women in legislation similar to version vetoed last year. President has raised specter of job quotas.

The battle over civil rights legislation began anew Tuesday as a Democrat-dominated House committee swiftly approved a job discrimination bill strongly opposed by President Bush and Republican leaders in both houses of Congress.

The voice vote by the House Education and Labor Committee advanced a bill that is basically the same as one vetoed by Bush last year, setting the stage for a similar showdown this summer. A House Judiciary subcommittee also endorsed the measure in a quick voice vote.

At issue is whether the new bill would impose job quotas, as Bush argues, or simply require fairness in hiring, pay, promotion and other working conditions, as leading Democrats and civil rights forces contend.

Key lawmakers on both sides predicted that the highly emotional struggle would lead to a renewed confrontation by early summer, with the President vetoing a civil rights bill for the second time and the Democratic-controlled Congress seeking to muster a two-thirds vote to override him.

While the issues are similar, new tactics are being tried this time by both the Administration and its allies as well as by the Democratic leadership and traditional civil rights organizations.

In contrast to last year, supporters of the bill emphasized potential benefits to working women, disabled persons, older Americans and others, in addition to racial minorities, as they advanced their bill, H.R. 1, in two committees.

Its title was changed to Civil Rights and Women’s Equity in Employment Act, for example, as backers emphasized that it would give women protection against sexual harassment in the workplace and allow damages in sex discrimination suits for the first time.

The chairman of the committee, Rep. William D. Ford (D-Mich.), even injected the Persian Gulf War into the debate, saying: “If you supported women fighting as equals in Operation Desert Storm, then you should support changes which ensure that women will be treated as fairly in the workplace.”

Trying to take the offensive this year, President Bush sent Congress his own recommendations for changing the law to reverse or modify several recent Supreme Court decisions that made it harder for workers to win job discrimination suits in the courts.

But he and his top GOP backers made essentially the same arguments: that the potential penalties and costs to employers from job bias suits under H.R. 1 are so great that they would be forced to use racial quotas in hiring.

The Republican leadership apparently believes that there is a strong backlash in the white community against the principle of employment preferences and decided to pound that theme during the coming weeks as the bill moves through the House and Senate.

Starting their own public relations offensive, civil rights groups presented victims of discrimination and sexual harassment at a Capitol Hill news conference to emphasize the human costs of job bias.

Ralph G. Neas, executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, dismissed the Administration’s bill as an “employers’ protection act” that he also termed “a wish-list for the right wing.”

Neas called the charge that the bill would lead to job quotas “pure poppycock . . . a big lie . . . a smoke screen by opponents.” He pointed out that the bill would prohibit quotas. Moreover, he said, the Bush Administration under existing law could prosecute employers who resort to race or gender quotas.

Neas expressed confidence that the bill would pass the House in mid-April and go through the Senate in May or June without major revisions.

Predicting another confrontation with the President, Rep. Charles A. Hayes (D-Ill.) said that there is little point in wasting time in debate on the bill in the committee.

Major controversy centers on whether employers should face unlimited compensatory and punitive damages, as well as lawyers’ fees, if they lose job discrimination suits brought by their workers or job applicants under the Democratic leadership’s bill.

The President proposed a cap of $150,000 on damages. Moreover, damages would be set by a judge and not a jury and would be paid only after a complaining employee had exhausted a company’s grievance or dispute-settlement system.

Endorsing Bush’s plan, Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kan.) said that the prospect of having to pay an unlimited amount of damages because of a job discrimination lawsuit would compel an employer to resort to quotas in self-defense.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said that the plan advocated by Democratic leaders and traditional civil rights groups “makes it so easy to sue and recover and so difficult to defend and pay the costs” that it is unfair to employers.

House Minority Leader Robert H. Michel (R-Ill.) said that the President told GOP leaders Tuesday morning that he wants to sign a civil rights bill that is fair and effective but that he cannot accept H.R. 1 because he believes it would bring job quotas and promote endless litigation.

Michel said that the President’s bill has 71 co-sponsors. The rival measure, however, already has 150 backers in the House and has been placed on a fast track by the Democratic leadership for House consideration next month.

Ford, speaking during debate on the two approaches in the House Education and Labor panel, said that he welcomes the President’s legislation since it would reverse or modify Supreme Court decisions that were challenged last year by civil rights forces as retrogressive.

“It’s no longer a question of whether there will be changes but now it’s a question of what changes will be made,” Ford said. But he termed the latest Administration plan a “significant retrenchment” from Bush’s own compromise proposals offered last fall.