WASHINGTON — They range from liberal Democrats in Portland and Seattle to a conservative Republican from Idaho. The eight Pacific Northwest House members who voted against a $700 billion financial rescue plan this week face tremendous pressure to change their vote.

For some, the Senate’s addition of a program to help rural counties hurt by logging cutbacks is enticing, while others want more protection for hard-hit homeowners facing foreclosure. Still others want to ensure the government gets a bigger stake in the companies it helps — while others say that would cripple the economy.

Whatever their reasons, and despite the pressure from congressional leaders, business lobbyists and the White House, none of the eight Northwest lawmakers who voted no — four Democrats and four Republicans — has committed to voting yes.

The House is expected to take up the revised bailout plan today. It is loaded up with about $120 billion worth of Senate-approved sweeteners.

The collective decisions by lawmakers who voted no on Monday will determine whether the financial rescue plan lives or dies. The Senate approved its version on Wednesday, two days after the 228-205 defeat in the House.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., said Thursday that he continues to believe there should be more protections for taxpayers and a push for what he calls bankruptcy fairness, which he said “will do more to stop the free fall than anything else.” Blumenauer’s plan would make it easier for private individuals and homeowners to emerge from bankruptcy or foreclosure.

Blumenauer is a veteran lawmaker in a safe seat — and a close ally of House Democratic leaders. So, he is among those facing the most pressure. But the rescue plan is highly unpopular in his liberal Portland district.

“Obviously, this is a dynamic economic situation, and many things are in play. I am listening carefully and closely monitoring the situation,” he said Thursday.

Still, he said, “Absent some dramatic change in circumstances, I have no plans to support the bailout legislation.”

Rep. Bill Sali, R-Idaho, Blumenauer’s ideological opposite, reached a similar conclusion. Sali called the bailout bill bloated and said it does not address the underlying problems that led to the current crisis.

“We need a solution that does not jeopardize taxpayers and doesn’t change the relationship of the government with businesses,” Sali said.

Sali, one of the most conservative members of Congress, said the Senate bill would put the federal government in what he called the unconstitutional position of being an investor in major financial firms. “Once we start down this road, we establish the precedent of putting Uncle Sam in the position of choosing winners and losers in the private sector, and that marks a complete departure from our incredibly productive, private, market-based economy,” he said.

To help solve the credit crisis, Sali advocates reducing or eliminating certain taxes for private investors who buy troubled investments.

Rep. Jay Inslee, D-Wash., said the latest plan does not do enough to help stem “the real cause of the crisis, which is the collapse in our housing markets.”

A spokeswoman said Inslee was interested in hearing as many ideas as possible but remains undecided.

A spokeswoman for Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., said her boss also would reserve judgment. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Wash., said he was encouraged by a plan to increase federal deposit insurance to $250,000, but was not yet convinced the overall plan was a good idea.

“We have to come up with a way to lay the bulk of the burden on CEOs — the people who put us here in the first place,” Reichert said. “My job is to protect the money that my constituents put in as income tax and use it wisely.”

Rep. David Wu, D-Ore., wants to find a mechanism to pay for the bailout, such as a quarter-percent fee on stock transactions, as well as increased protection for taxpayers, said spokeswoman Julia Krahe.

As a longtime supporter of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Development Act, commonly known as “county payments,” Wu was encouraged to see its inclusion in the Senate bailout bill, Krahe said.

Still, she said Wu remains undecided.

Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., showed no such hesitation. He has emerged as a leading critic of the bill from the left, despite the inclusion of the timber program, one of DeFazio’s top legislative priorities.

DeFazio calls the timber money “lipstick on a pig” and said the bailout plan does not fix the underlying problems in the economy.

Another bailout opponent, Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., called the timber provision a mere add-on that does not change the fundamentals of the bailout bill.