A Unified Congress Weighs Emergency Funds

A somber Congress returned to work Wednesday and opened an urgent, emotional debate about how the nation should respond to an act of war by an enemy that is not easily identified.

As an immediate response, Congress was expected to approve as soon as today a $20-billion administration request for emergency spending to aid the federal investigation into Tuesday’s attacks, help repair the damage, improve security at airports and finance other national security measures.

Legislators contemplated a range of additional steps--from investigations of intelligence failures to a declaration of war and from more funds for national security to lifting the ban on assassination to combat terrorists.

While the fate of such proposals remained unclear, it was apparent that the legislative and political landscape--even the mind-set of members of both parties--had been transformed by Tuesday’s attacks.

Legislators who began the week obsessed with keeping the budget in balance were suddenly ready to spend seemingly limitless sums for defense-related purposes. Democrats and Republicans who had been mired in corrosive partisanship closed ranks. A Capitol that is usually bustling with tourists was like a ghost town as the public was banished from the building as a security precaution.

And all other issues that once dominated Congress--education, health care and Social Security--were abruptly dwarfed by the immediate need to finance disaster assistance, analyze how the attacks were mounted, identify the perpetrators and retaliate.

“The America in which we woke today is far different from the one in which we woke yesterday,” said Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).

The willingness of legislators to act so quickly on the $20-billion emergency request signaled that the fiscal constraints that had tied their hands a few days ago--given the insistence by both parties on not spending the Social Security surplus--were no longer an issue.

“The commitment to Social Security is also a national priority that will have to be maintained over time,” said Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “But the critical message now is that we are going to defend this nation, no matter what it takes.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said: “I’m not going to bury my head in the sand and say I’m taking that position [of not spending the Social Security surplus], regardless of America’s security.”

As they convened Wednesday, legislators were eager to get back to business to demonstrate that terrorism would not turn Congress into a government in exile. But this was clearly not business as usual. “We must put ourselves on war footing,” said Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.).

The entire agenda was devoted to the terrorist attack. The House and Senate passed a resolution condemning the acts of violence and declaring Wednesday a national day of mourning. Congressional leaders met with President Bush at the White House. House and Senate members received closed-door briefings on the attacks from administration intelligence officials. The day ended with a prayer vigil and memorial service at the Capitol.

Bipartisan Unity With a Few Reservations

The united front that legislators offered publicly was not without some hints of discord. In its emergency spending request, the Bush administration asked for an open-ended authority. But some Democrats balked at providing such a blank check. And members of both parties complained that administration officials were not providing enough information in the briefings.

Meanwhile, some legislators wondered about Capitol Hill’s role in the response to the terrorism.

Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said Congress was essentially peripheral to the overriding goal of identifying the perpetrators and rallying the international community behind some form of retaliation.

But others pressed ahead, proposing congressional action on a variety of fronts. Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) called for establishing a czar to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and others advocated a formal declaration of war. Others said that was futile until it was known whom to declare it against.

Some legislators suggested reconsideration of a CIA policy against assassination as a counter-terrorism tool.

“We need to think carefully about a more proactive response,” said Sen. Evan Bayh (R-Ind.). “You can’t deter fanatics. You can’t bring suicide bombers to justice.”

Beyond providing the emergency spending, legislators from both parties began calling for large spending increases for defense and intelligence agencies. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently approved a Pentagon budget that did not guarantee Bush would get the $18.4 billion in additional funding he sought. In the wake of Tuesday’s attacks, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said that bill is being reconsidered--and that Bush would probably end up getting an even bigger defense increase.

Some voices, however, called for a more critical approach to spending requests. A senior House Democratic aide cautioned that legislators may be reluctant to increase spending before they understand how U.S. intelligence agencies failed to detect the attacks.

“There are going to be some very hard questions asked,” said the aide. Legislators ultimately “may throw money at [the response to the attacks], but it’s not going to be without strings attached.”

Still, members of both parties seemed prepared to declare a truce to the bitter budget fight that had preoccupied them in recent weeks: whether Congress should stick by its pledge to avoid using Social Security surpluses for other purposes.

“You may as well just forget about issues like cutting into Social Security,” said Rep. George Radanovich (R-Mariposa). “That is going to happen, and it’s going to be due mainly to big increases in defense spending and national security issues.”

Some said Tuesday’s calamity made many of Congress’ recent battles seem trivial.

“It makes you think some of the things we squabble about are pretty petty,” said Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.).

*

Times staff writer Richard Simon contributed to this story.