UPDATE 1-Republican group wants US bailout cut to $250 bln

Thu Oct 2, 2008 4:23pm EDT

(Adds details)

WASHINGTON Oct 2 (Reuters) - A group of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives said on Thursday they would seek an amendment to significantly reduce the size of a $700 billion Wall Street bailout package headed for a House vote soon.

Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette said 23 Republican lawmakers will seek an amendment that would lower the amount the Treasury Department could spend on the bailout to $250 billion.

Twenty of those were among the 133 Republicans who voted against the first version of the bailout legislation, which was defeated on the House floor on Monday.

Speaking to reporters, LaTourette said that under the plan, Congress would reconvene in mid-November to review Treasury's progress and see whether additional legislation was needed to provide more money to the administration.

The senior Republican on the House Financial Services Committee embraced the proposal. Rep. Spencer Bachus of Alabama said it will provide Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson "the funds in an amount as great as he has said that he can expend in an orderly fashion" until a review could be done in mid-November.

Shortly before the House Republicans unveiled their proposed amendment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters there probably was not time for the House to change the bailout bill that was passed by the Senate late Wednesday.

While the Senate was still in session on Thursday, many senators had already left Washington in anticipation of a long recess and it would take time to bring them back if they were needed to vote again on a revised House bailout bill.

Nevertheless, the group of Republicans were seeking permission from House leadership to allow their amendment to be debated on the House floor.

That decision was expected later on Thursday.

Legislation is generally debated on the House floor with strict limitations on amendments, and often with a total prohibition on amendments. (Reporting by Richard Cowan and Kim Dixon, editing by Jackie Frank)

Comments (0)
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.