Republican leaders planned to push the measure through the GOP-controlled House on Thursday, said Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young, R-Fla., who described the proposal. The Appropriations panel approves federal spending.

''We want a swift, positive reaction from Congress, and appropriating the money is just that,'' Young told reporters.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., cast doubt on the measure's immediate fate, saying he would be surprised if it could be approved in one day and that there was no final agreement on a dollar amount.

''It's premature to be announcing a figure,'' he told reporters.

White House budget office spokesman Christopher Ullman indicated some flexibility, saying the administration would continue working on the measure ''until all parties are satisfied.'' He said the chief goal was to provide the money quickly.

The measure would put the entire amount in an emergency response fund the president controls. Bush could use it to counter and prosecute domestic and international terrorists, boost transportation security, rebuild the damaged Pentagon and clean up the debris of New York's two World Trade Center towers.

Lawmakers of both parties balked at an initial White House plan to seek a virtual blank check for taking whatever actions the president considered necessary.

''I didn't come here to have written on my tombstone that any president could, if he wanted, put eight divisions into Afghanistan or go to war with the entire Arab world ... without consulting with any other human being in government,'' said Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee.

According to wording that circulated on Capitol Hill, an early version of the administration's bill would have provided ''such sums as may be necessary to respond to the terrorist attacks on the United States.''

In private, some House Democrats said the final version still gave Bush too much leeway to spend the money as he pleases. But few seemed likely to vote against the measure amid overwhelming public outrage against the attacks.

Many of the 13 regular spending bills for the coming fiscal year also seemed likely to be altered so extra money could be included for defense, intelligence, air system safety and other activities.

Meanwhile, members of both parties said the partisan fight over whether to tap Social Security's surpluses for other federal activities seemed finished, at least for now. Though that issue had seemed destined to dominate this fall's political battle, the enormity of Tuesday's destruction had lawmakers saying they should respond to the incidents, no matter where the money comes from.

''That debate is over at this point,'' said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill. ''I'm not going to bury my head in the sand and say I'm taking that position, regardless of America's security.''

House Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa, indefinitely postponed plans for his committee to write a bill that would automatically cut spending by the amount the Social Security surplus is eroded.

As the limp economy and the costs of this year's tax cut have squeezed the budget, Democrats and Republicans have warred over how to avoid siphoning Social Security funds to pay for other programs.

But in the wake of Tuesday's attacks, such talk was on the wane, with many lawmakers and officials emphasizing that their pledge to not was not meant to apply during war, recession or emergencies.

''I think that this is the definition of a severe emergency,'' Fleischer said.