GOP LETTER URGES CENSURE; 4 MODERATES APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION.

Byline: James Bennet and Alison Mitchell The New York Times

A handful of moderate Republicans who voted to impeach President Clinton appealed to the Senate on Monday to consider censuring the president instead of convicting him, as many lawmakers scrambled to find a way to avoid a lengthy, embarrassing Senate trial.

Because most senators, used to deciding things in clubby caucuses, are away and the only precedents for a presidential trial are 130 years old, there was no evidence that a consensus existed, nor any clear idea whether Senate rules would hamper or assist one if it emerged.

The White House, through Vice President Al Gore, continued to demand that the Senate quickly ``forge a fair bipartisan compromise.'' For his part, the president publicly ignored the issue and turned to the symbolic duties of his office in a holiday season.

But the day's most striking development was the letter from Reps. Sherry Boehlert and Benjamin Gilman of New York, Mike Castle of Delaware and Jim Greenwood of Pennsylvania, which they prepared to send to Trent Lott, the Senate majority leader. They released its text Monday night, and plan to send it today.

``We are not convinced, and do not want our votes interpreted to mean, that we view removal from office as the only reasonable conclusion of this case,'' they wrote, although the articles of impeachment for which they voted each concluded: ``Wherefore, William Jefferson Clinton, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.''

They argued in their letter that while it was ``questionable'' whether the House had authority to deal with censure, the Senate clearly ``does have the authority and the precedents to consider a range of options. Those options should include a tough censure proposal, which would impose a fine and block any pardon.'' The representatives all voted Saturday against allowing the consideration of a Democratic move to allow a House vote on censure.

Another House Republican who voted for impeachment, W.J. Tauzin of Louisiana, was consulting with colleagues Monday about asking the Senate to avert a trial. His spokesman, Ken Johnson, said, ``The feeling is the president paid a terrible price for his actions. The Clinton presidency has been indelibly stained by impeachment.''

He said House Republicans could vote only up or down on impeachment. ``That was a lousy choice, but the only one allowed under the Constitution,'' he said. ``Our hands were tied. Too much blood has been spilled already and there's a time to begin the healing process.''

Admitting he lied?

But despite a rising clamor among past and present politicians for censure, the alternatives put forward so far face two formidable obstacles, at least today.

Most such proposals, including the one offered Monday by former Presidents Ford and Carter, require that Clinton concede he lied under oath, a step his aides insist he will not take. With that in mind, or perhaps merely as a bargaining tactic, some White House aides say censure might be unworkable.

``It just may be there's no acceptable form of censure, so why go through that?'' said one Clinton adviser. A trial, he said, would provide the country with a ``definitive end to this thing.''

``No one is going to fault us for mounting a defense,'' he said. ``And believe me, we're going to mount one. Believe me.''

Further, several senior Republican senators have said they have a constitutional duty to at least begin a trial.

A quick vote

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who is likely to play a prominent role in any trial, said he would like to see the Senate vote on the two articles of impeachment approved Saturday before considering any alternatives. But he said he believed it could be done quickly.

He said in an interview there was ``a lot of discussion about at what point is censure an appropriate discussion. My view is we need to commence the trial. Otherwise it just completely makes short shrift of the action of the House.''

Republicans have said they expect Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the Senate's leading expert on rules and procedures, to support their contention that the Senate is obliged to open a trial.

But on Monday, Byrd kept his options open. ``Whether there is a trial or whether there is some other solution, that decision must be made by senators,'' he said, ``and it must be bipartisan or it will have absolutely no credibility with the public.''

He made a similar argument for the primacy of the Senate. He warned that the White House should not expect to control the terms of a censure resolution.

``For the good of our nation, there must be no `deal' involving the White House or any entity beyond the current membership of the U.S. Senate,'' he said in a written statement that signaled that at least some Senate Democrats would maintain some distance from the president.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who suggested Sunday that senators return to Washington and work things out immediately, said Monday in an interview that it was hard for senators to sound each other out and seek agreement. He said, ``One of the difficulties here - it also may be a blessing from the leadership's standpoint - is we're not in session.''

The four congressmen behind Monday's letter said the Senate should take into account such issues as the connection between Clinton's conduct and his official duties and ``the will of the American voter.''

``We believe those factors may lead the Senate to conclude that a remedy short of removal is in order,'' they wrote, and urged Lott to make sure the Senate could have a full debate on censure.

At the White House, the president's press secretary, Joseph Lockhart, continued to urge a quick compromise. ``The overwhelming majority of Americans want this over with and they'd like it over with soon,'' he said. ``I don't see any advantage - nor does anyone that works here see an advantage - in not finding some way to quickly dispatch this.''

Some Clinton advisers are not convinced that censure will prove to be in the president's interest. They argue that the charges against Clinton are flimsy, and would not withstand the robust examination that the White House could make during a Senate trial. A trial that resulted in acquittal, these advisers believe, would bolster Clinton and do lasting damage to the Republican Party.

But generally, White House officials are concerned about Clinton's ability to govern in the interim. Some sort of quick compromise, they say, is in the country's best interest.

Gore made that appeal Monday, speaking at the White House as he presented an award for the use of plain language by federal employees. He called the impeachment vote by the House on Saturday ``wrong for our Constitution and wrong for America.''

Gore's remarks suggested that he intends to serve in a high-profile defense role before the Senate, where he served for eight years before becoming vice president.

``I do hope that the United States Senate will rise to this moment, as it so often does, to be the voice of reason, deliberation, and healing that America needs,'' he continued. He urged the Senate to ``end this matter promptly'' and to end it ``in a way that will respect the will and the wisdom of the American people.''