If the House were to vote on a compromise reform of the nation’s intelligence agencies, a reform that passed easily in the Senate and is supported by the White House, many observers believe it would become law. Speaker Dennis Hastert, who controls whether the reform is brought up for a vote, supports the measure, but he has two committee chairmen who do not and whose support he will want later on issues such as the planned Social Security overhaul.

Speaker Hastert needs a compromise, but not on the Intelligence legislation.

He needs, first, to use more discretion when using the litmus test of “the majority of the majority” – that is, allowing a vote only when a majority of House Republicans back a particular issue. The standard is understandable generally, but a single-minded determination to make Democrats irrelevant is harmful to the work of Congress. Sometimes, as in this case, it is not even clear how many Republicans would support the reform.

The speaker’s use of this test is more likely a nod to GOP Reps. Duncan Hunter of California and James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, committee chairmen who oppose the measure and may continue to oppose it unless they were permitted to write it themselves. That’s not going to happen, so if the speaker and President Bush, who became much more involved in this discussion after the election, are to see a bill become law, they cannot count on winning the votes of these chairmen.

In exchange for easing up on the majority rule, the many supporters demanding that the speaker bring the reform to a vote should back off a bit. Clearly, it is difficult for the speaker to split his conference over so important an issue. He is aware that further assessments of the nation’s intelligence gathering, due this spring, will make his current inaction even less acceptable. Finding a way to bring the reform to a voice vote may be one way to solve this puzzle and avoid embarrassment for everyone.

The reform bill, which creates an overseeing director of national intelligence and a counter-terrorism center, has already seen enough compromise since Sen. Susan Collins, who is the lead author of the Senate bill, won near-unanimous backing for it in that house. Supporters of the stronger bill have been willing to compromise for the sake of getting a bill that, even as amended, is an important advancement on national security. But it has been negotiated enough.

That means it’s time for Speaker Hastert and his caucus to start some intra-party dealing. Time is short, but this bill is too important to lose.