2 Women Democrats Fault House Leaders : Legislation: Pair are blocked from trying to kill rights bill’s ceiling on damages, which affects female victims of bias. Split may hurt measure.

As the House prepares to take up a Democratic-sponsored civil rights measure, two key women members of Congress faulted their own leadership Thursday for denying them an opportunity to remove a proposed cap on damage awards to female victims of job discrimination.

The split within Democratic ranks is the latest blow to the embattled civil rights legislation, already imperiled by President Bush’s veto threat and Republican attempts to characterize it as an effort to force employers to adopt hiring quotas.

Although the measure advocated by Democratic leaders appears certain to be passed by the House next Tuesday or Wednesday, the continuing controversy and intense infighting over many of its provisions may jeopardize its chances in the Senate.

The House bill is designed to reverse a series of Supreme Court rulings that have made it more difficult for minority members and women to win job discrimination lawsuits. It is similar to a bill vetoed last year by Bush, who wants Congress to adopt a rival Administration measure.

House Democratic leaders have made several concessions to wavering Democrats and moderate Republicans in an effort to enlist the 290 votes that would be needed to override a Bush veto. Last year, 273 House members voted for the bill, which was vetoed by Bush. The Senate sustained his action by one vote.

One such concession involves a proposed $150,000 ceiling on the amount of punitive or compensatory damages that may be awarded to plaintiffs who become victims of intentional discrimination because they are female, disabled or members of religious minorities. The cap would not apply to victims of racial bias.

The congresswomen raised objections after the House Rules Committee, following the leadership’s wishes, rejected a request by Rep. Patricia Schroeder (D-Colo.) and others to permit a separate vote on the damage award ceiling when the bill reaches the House floor next week.

House leaders apparently fear that an amendment to remove the ceiling would be approved, endangering their effort to assemble a veto-proof majority. They instead endorsed a rule that would only allow a floor vote on a complete substitute bill, which does not contain the ceiling. It is given little chance of passage.

“I think we are going backward in this Congress--not forward,” snapped Rep. Mary Rose Oakar (D-Ohio), who generally is a leadership loyalist.

“They can shut us out, but they can’t shut us up,” Schroeder said at news conference.

House Majority Whip William H. Gray III (D-Pa.) defended the decision as a pragmatic step to line up more votes for the bill, although he said that he personally opposes any limit on damages in discrimination cases. The bill would allow women and the disabled to sue for punitive damages for the first time, he noted.

However, Schroeder said that the unequal treatment went to the core of civil rights legislation. “The good news about this bill is that women are allowed on the bus,” she said. “The bad news is that we have to go to the back of the bus.”

Meanwhile, the President kept up his drumfire of attacks on the Democratic leadership’s latest version of the bill in a speech to graduates of the FBI academy at Quantico, Va.

“Unfortunately, congressional leaders again want to pass a bill that would lead employers to adopt hiring quotas and unfair job preferences,” Bush said, belittling the latest efforts by Democrats to explicitly forbid hiring quotas.

“If you look closely . . . you’ll see that it endorses quotas,” the President said.

House Majority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) angrily rejected Bush’s characterization. “He’s a President seeking a political issue,” Gephardt said. “This is a President who wants to save his negative ads from 1988 and use them again in 1992 . . . . This is the first President in the civil rights era who wants to tear us apart for political gain.”

In another slap at Congress, the President demanded swift action on his anti-crime package, noting that he had challenged lawmakers last March to pass it within 100 days and that neither the House nor the Senate has taken up the legislation after 85 days.

House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) said that presidential deadlines on legislation are self-defeating and predicted that the House will adopt a crime bill that would be a “significant improvement” over the Administration’s proposals.