Democrats Agree to Rights Bill Revision : Congress: The new wording calls hiring quotas ‘unlawful.’ Leaders seek support of lawmakers from Southern and urban ethnic districts.

Struggling to sway wavering lawmakers, House Democratic leaders Wednesday made another change in their civil rights bill in an effort to defuse President Bush’s politically potent allegation that it would force business firms to hire by race or sex quotas.

The latest revision declares that quotas are an “unlawful employment practice” that would allow victims of reverse discrimination to sue employers for damages if they fill jobs on the basis of racial or gender percentages.

It was designed to provide additional reassurance for Democrats from the South and big-city ethnic districts who fear that Republican opponents may try to define them as supporters of a “quota bill” in 1992 elections.

“Clearly, the Administration does not want a civil rights bill,” House Majority Whip William H. Gray III (D-Pa.) told reporters. “The President plays good guy but his henchmen . . . are blowing up a compromise. It’s disgraceful, it’s a ruse and everybody knows it.”

But he acknowledged that the White House tactic has been effective, adding: “We’re getting beat over the head right now.”

In another last-minute switch, the House leaders put off the opening of debate on the civil rights legislation, originally scheduled for today, because of a dispute between Democrats and Republicans over ground rules for consideration of the bill.

House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said that he hopes the Rules Committee will be able to resolve the issue, however, clearing the way for the start of debate next Tuesday.

The hotly controversial legislation has been delayed for weeks while sponsors drafted changes that they hoped would build a veto-proof majority in Congress. Bush, however, has dismissed the changes as “cosmetic” and promised to veto the bill if it reaches his desk in the form that is expected to pass the House.

A similar civil rights measure was approved by the House last year by a 272-vote majority and Democratic leaders said that they are confident they will surpass that margin this year. But they said that they are not sure whether they will get the 288 votes that would constitute the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. Votes on the bill are not scheduled until the middle of next week.

Meantime, several Democratic women members of the House attacked the bill because it includes a cap of $150,000 in punitive damages in cases of intentional discrimination against women, the disabled and members of most religious groups. (There is no ceiling on such damages for racial minorities, Jews or Muslims whose status is governed by another statute passed immediately after the Civil War.)

Rep. Barbara B. Kennelly (D-Conn.) said that the caps would “codify inequality” and back away from the principle of equal job opportunity. Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) said that ceilings on damages would make women, disabled persons and religious minorities “second-class citizens” in the guise of promoting their civil rights.

The women advocated a floor amendment that would remove the caps but said that they would reluctantly vote for the bill, even if the ceilings remain, because it would allow women for the first time to collect damages in cases of job discrimination.

Speaking for the leadership, Gray said that he also opposes a cap on damages but defended its inclusion in the proposed bill as a compromise to broaden support for its passage.