The White House wants an overhauled intelligence-agency structure. So do congressional committees that have looked into the issue, and so do the initial drafters of a blueprint for the overhaul, the members of the 9-11 Commission. Families of the victims of the 9-11 attacks have held numerous press conferences urging Congress to pass a bill, and after a 96-2 vote in the Senate on compromise legislation from a Senate-House conference committee, the reform seemed certain.

Then, on Saturday, it fell apart, technically because Speaker Dennis Hastert, who also supports the reform, wouldn’t call a vote. Realistically, however, the bill has been stopped because a couple of conservative House committee chairmen do not like the bill – and, significantly, neither does the Department of Defense, despite President Bush and Vice President Cheney urging conference members to reach agreement. The president’s next step, one he would understandably take reluctantly, is to pressure Speaker Hastert to hold the vote in early December – the bill is said to have the House votes to pass – and risk angering allies.

The reform is important because it would create a position, the director of national intelligence, to oversee the nation’s intelligence agencies and coordinate their work. It would also create a counter-terrorism center, that would bring together the disparate work of the agencies to look for patterns, anticipate threats and guide policy-makers. It establishes an independent privacy and civil liberties board.

Also in the bill are new immigration standards, though not some of the worst impulses, including expedited deportation, that were in the original House bill. And in another compromise, Senate conferees agreed to leave the total budget of the intelligence agencies classified. The funding will continue to be hidden in the Department of Defense budget, though the new intelligence director would have control over determining the agency budgets.

Sen. Susan Collins, an author of the bill, said Saturday, “We believe the status quo is still unacceptable – there is a need for one person to be accountable and to marshal the resources necessary to counter terrorism and other emerging threats.” She properly has urged the White House to remain active in pursing a reformed intelligence structure.

The two primary opponents to the reform were House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., R-Wis. They had the Department of Defense behind them, as became clear last month after a letter by Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to Rep. Hunter, argued for keeping Defense between the DNI and the budgets of combat support intelligence agencies. Rep. Sensenbrenner also wanted considerably more powers given to immigration authorities, which may be worthy of debate but was not relevant to the restructuring of the intelligence agencies.

President Bush seems determined to enact some of the necessary reforms whether or not Congress agrees – a counter-terrorism center is on the way, for instance – but Congress can make the reforms more far-reaching and give them a clear and lasting direction.

The president can help further by urging Speaker Hastert to put the White House’s concerns about national security ahead of his chairmen’s worries and press for a vote.