CLINTON TO ASK HIGH COURT TO RESTORE VETO POWERS.

Byline: Associated Press 

President Clinton announced Friday that his administration will ask the Supreme Court to quickly restore the line-item veto law struck down by a federal judge. He said the veto power, yet to be used, is needed to help ``preserve the integrity'' of the huge federal budget.

Sponsors suggested the judge's rejection of the law could make it harder to achieve a balanced-budget agreement this year. But opponents said they were delighted and voiced optimism that the Supreme Court ultimately would rule the same way.

The ruling found Clinton in a rare position: on the same side as Republican congressional leaders.

The only major provision in the 1994 GOP ``Contract With America'' embraced by Clinton, the law authorized the president to cut specific items in spending bills without rejecting the entire bills.

It also would have allowed him to cancel some tax cuts passed by Congress.

``I feel my years of struggle against this line-item veto have been vindicated,'' Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., a plaintiff in the case, said in an interview. ``It's a very popular idea with the American people, but they've been misled by political demagoguery.''

The law, which took effect in January, provides for a direct appeal to the Supreme Court rather than to a federal appellate court. Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry said the president hopes the case can be heard by June.

``I was disappointed and I intend to appeal it,'' Clinton said in announcing the decision.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson ruled that the law violated the Constitution by giving the president powers that belonged solely to Congress, turning the principle of separation of powers ``on its head.''

Line-item veto powers have long been sought by presidents of both parties. Governors of a majority of the states have such powers, as did Clinton when he was governor of Arkansas.

``The president fully intended to use the line-item veto in the interests of taxpayers,'' said McCurry.

He was asked if the loss of the power would hurt Clinton in the budget talks.

``They're not at the point . . . where that tool would have that kind of effect,'' McCurry said. ``Ultimately the president does need to have that authority to restrain spending,''

Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas, said he was sure the law eventually would be upheld.

``This is another unfortunate instance of an appointed federal judge seeking to make law without the inconvenience of first getting elected to Congress,'' Gramm said. Jackson was appointed by President Reagan.