Task of Gauging Punishment Begins

After spending the weekend examining a report about President Clinton’s misconduct--and getting an earful from their constituents about it--on Monday members of Congress began the difficult process of determining the most appropriate punishment for the offenses described in painfully explicit detail by independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr.

Although a pitched battle is brewing over what should be done, a consensus seems to be building that the most extreme options--doing nothing or driving Clinton from office by impeaching him--are not the most likely outcomes of the investigation of his sexual relationship with former White House intern Monica S. Lewinsky.

Many Democrats have acknowledged that Clinton’s behavior calls for some kind of rebuke. But there are doubts--even among Republicans--that the evidence gathered so far would justify impeachment.

“I don’t find it clear-cut,” said Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.), a leading conservative critic of Clinton. “It’s really a high standard as to whether you go for impeachment.”

The search for the right middle ground--censure, censure with special conditions or impeachment by the House without conviction in the Senate--will dominate the coming weeks, overshadowing both parties’ legislative agendas, this fall’s congressional elections and many kitchen-table discussions. The White House, while insisting it wants a clean bill of health in the House, already is moving to steer the process to the less punitive options.

“There’s going to be some middle option the Congress is clearly going to be considering,” said one White House official. “It’s not going to be all or nothing.”

The search will be colored by the two parties’ different interests in timing. Democrats are eager to get the matter behind them.

“We should not rule out any action to meet public demand for a prompt, appropriate conclusion in the public interest,” said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who has suggested a lame-duck congressional session after the fall elections.

But Republicans seem to be in no hurry to wrap up the matter.

“We’re heading to a slow, deliberate process,” an aide to House GOP leaders said.

After receiving Starr’s report Friday, many lawmakers returned to their districts over the weekend, and heard their first direct soundings from the public.

Rep. Marge Roukema (R-N.J.) heard from many constituents at town fairs and picnics. Those who spoke to her “were uniformly shocked and appalled at what was going on,” she said.

One congressional office reported receiving 700 e-mail messages about the Starr report from constituents over the weekend.

But Democrats were heartened by positive poll results showing that Clinton’s job approval ratings have not plummeted in the wake of the report’s release.

Clinton, for his part, spent Monday in New York City following a carefully scripted schedule of activities that presented the president only in settings unlikely to produce scandal-related questions: delivering a speech on the global economy, presenting the Presidential Medal of Freedom, raising money for the Democratic Party.

But the forces buffeting his presidency were still in evidence. At one stop, he was greeted by a large sign that said: “Save the presidency. Jail Kenneth ‘Porno’ Starr.” Elsewhere, two people displayed a one-word sign: “Resign.” At a Democratic fund-raising function, neither House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) nor his Senate counterpart Daschle approached Clinton or looked at him during their talks.

Back on Capitol Hill, battle lines were forming on the House Judiciary Committee. While Republicans signaled the need for an impeachment inquiry, Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), the ranking minority member, openly questioned whether there is enough evidence to take that step.

But with polls indicating that the public does not want Clinton to be impeached, lawmakers’ early discussions have turned to more moderate forms of punishment.

Polls also show that the public wants the issue to be resolved quickly, fueling some talk that Democrats might step up pressure on Clinton to resign. But that option seemed far less likely after the weekend polls showed Clinton’s job-approval rating holding relatively steady.

But the polls also indicate enough public disapproval of Clinton’s personal conduct that many Democrats are calling for some kind of punishment.

“There needs to be a formal consequence,” said Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), a member of the Judiciary Committee who raised strong reservations about Starr’s impeachment case.

A congressional censure of Clinton has emerged as a possible alternative, with some Democrats seeing it as a way to resolve the nation’s dilemma without dragging the country through a prolonged impeachment proceeding.

But some lawmakers from both parties oppose censure on constitutional grounds, arguing that impeachment is the only sanction made available against a president by the Founding Fathers.

That hasn’t stopped House Republicans from beginning to talk privately of “censure-plus”: adding provisions to what would be a nonbinding “sense of the Congress” resolution condemning Clinton’s actions. Among the ideas being discussed: having Clinton pay a fine--on grounds that his misleading statements prolonged a taxpayer-funded investigation--or depriving him of his federal pension.

When a reporter asked Clinton after his speech in New York whether he would accept a censure, the audience hissed and Clinton ignored the question.

Times staff writers Edwin Chen, James Gerstenzang and Marc Lacey contributed to this story.