2 GOP BIGWIGS BUCK PARTY ON IMMIGRANT SCHOOLING BAN.

Byline: Eric Schmitt The New York Times

Quietly bucking their party leaders, two senior, influential Republicans privately oppose a provision in pending immigration legislation that would allow states to bar children who are illegal immigrants from public schools.

The two lawmakers said they will try to modify or kill the provision, written by California Rep. Elton Gallegly, a Republican from Oxnard.

To maintain appearances of party unity, one of the two, Rep. Henry Hyde of Illinois, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, publicly supports the measure. The other, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is officially noncommittal.

But both lawmakers, whose views will carry weight in a House-Senate conference committee that will soon meet to reconcile the chambers' differing bills, are telling associates that the measure is bad policy because it would throw thousands of children into the street. The House bill contains the provision; the Senate bill does not.

``I don't like it,'' Hatch said in an interview this week. ``I worry about the children. On the other hand, there's a legitimate need to get tough on illegal immigration. I hope we can find some middle ground in conference, but it ain't going to be easy.''

Hyde last week told the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, a national police union that has come out against the provision, that he would ``oppose the measure and vote against it,'' said the union official, James O. Pasco Jr. When asked this week about his personal position, Hyde smiled and looked away without commenting.

The education ban is a fiercely contested issue in the presidential race. Bob Dole, the apparent Republican nominee, supports it; President Clinton is expected to veto any legislation containing such a provision. The proposed ban is particularly popular in California, where Gov. Pete Wilson has been an outspoken supporter. The state spends $1.8 billion a year to educate more than 350,000 students who are illegal immigrants.

Dole renewed his call for the education ban this week at a campaign stop in Southern California. He said the measure would allow California to put into effect Proposition 187, the initiative that state voters approved two years ago but which has since been stalled in the courts.

The proposed ban is dividing Republicans nationwide. Except for Wilson, Republican governors in states with large number of illegal immigrants - Texas, New York and Illinois - all oppose it. And former President George Bush recently condemned the measure.

The education ban enjoys much broader support in the House, which approved the amendment by a vote of 257-163 in March, than in the Senate. During the debate on the House immigration bill in March, House Speaker Newt Gingrich made a rare floor speech supporting the education ban as a way to relieve states of the large financial costs they incur in educating these children.

Rep. Dick Armey of Texas, the House majority leader, predicted Tuesday that House and Senate negotiators would approve the education ban.

``We expect the conference to come back with the Gallegly amendment intact,'' Armey told reporters.

Although most experts say illegal immigrants come to the United States to find work, Armey said that another enticement to parents who entered the country illegally was a free public education for their children. He said the education ban would take away that allure.

``It's prudent to say to these people that we're not going to first seduce you as responsible parents to break our laws and cross our borders, and then arrest you as criminals,'' Armey said. ``This is called entrapment.''

When asked if the House insistence on the education ban was designed to bait Clinton into vetoing a popular bill, Armey said: ``You don't work as hard as we have worked on a serious piece of legislation like immigration reform to attract a presidential veto. We want to get this signed into law.''

But Armey had no ready answer on how the House Republicans' hard line could be reconciled with Clinton's threat of a veto. ``The big question is, does the leadership want a bill or does it want a veto?'' said one House Republican, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.