Imagine the elation in Bush/Cheney 2004 circles should the President find himself in the Rose Garden in late October surrounded by a bipartisan assortment of Congressional leaders, family members of the victims of the September 11 attacks and the leading members of the 9/11 Commission, all applauding the President for signing into law the most comprehensive legislation to revamp our intelligence agencies in more than a generation.

Voters seem to view the ongoing war on terrorism as the most pressing issue facing America, and that they give the President an insurmountable advantage on that issue over John Kerry. To many political observers, an intelligence reform bill enacted prior to the election would guarantee Bush's reelection.

Small wonder, then, that Capitol Hill has been utterly dominated these past two weeks by maneuverings on this crucial issue. Still, racing to finish a bill would be a bad idea.

On September 29 alone, five separate House committees considered and approved portions of a comprehensive package of intelligence reforms. Meanwhile, the Senate slogged through floor amendments to the reform package. With so many cooks in the kitchen, and with Congress operating under the assumption that this is "must pass" legislation, some conservatives, such as former Atty. Gen. Ed Meese, have warned Hill leaders to "be wary of the rush to reform."

As with so many legislative debates in Washington, this one has become bogged down by a silly dispute. Almost all Congressional Democrats, and some Republicans, have rallied around the curious notion that it would be a high crime and misdemeanor to tamper in the slightest way with the 41 recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. The only problem is that they include some and ignore other of the recommendations.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), in sharp contrast, unveiled a much broader package of reforms on September 23 that include both intelligence and other national security-related reforms, all of which are consistent with, if not the letter, at least the spirit of the Commission's recommendations.

Hastert wants not only to redesign the structure of the intelligence agencies, but also to enhance criminal penalties against those who provide any form of support to terrorists. He also aims to crack down on the availability of false identity documents, standardize federal criminal background checks, give prosecutors more tools to interrupt money-laundering and terrorist-financing schemes, strengthen pre-inspection programs at foreign airports and U.S. consulates to identify terrorists before they enter the U.S., create a database to track the travel history of foreign visitors in the United States, and target federal first responder grant funds according to the threat level that states face.

Civil libertarians and congressional liberals have decried many of these provisions as unwarranted intrusions on the freedoms of ordinary Americans. Indeed, to the extent that these provisions ignore the vital role of the courts in reviewing the day-to-day application of new surveillance and investigatory authorities, the civil libertarians have a point. But, for the most part, the authors have recognized the role the courts play under our Constitution in balancing liberty and security.

When all is said and done, members of Congress must make sure that they send the President a bill that would:

• Assure the independence of the National Intelligence Director.
• Structure the intelligence community to meet 21st Century threats.
• Preserve civil liberties.
• Integrate intelligence activities at all levels.
  

Meanwhile, even as it considers landmark legislation to reconfigure the structure of the intelligence agencies in the executive branch, Congress also ought to reconfigure the balkanized jurisdictional mess at its end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Currently, jurisdiction over homeland security issues resides with more than 80 subcommittees. In the House, powerful committees such as Judiciary, Transportation and Infrastructure, Ways and Means, Financial Services, Energy and Commerce, and International Relations all claim a piece of the pie. According to one estimate, during the first six months of 2004, Department of Homeland Security officials were called to testify at 126 hearings before various subcommittees.

Robert Herbold, former chief operating officer at Microsoft and author of a new book The Fiefdom Syndrome, warns business leaders of "behaviors... where ego and bureaucracy consistently trump common sense and innovation." He says these behaviors lead to turf wars where "individuals and groups worry more about defending their turf and protecting the status quo than in moving the organization forward."

Rep. Chris Cox (R.-Calif.), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, has stirred the waters with a proposal to consolidate all authority over homeland security issues in a single new committee that would have primary jurisdiction over information-sharing issues, terrorism-threat warnings, research and development, border security, visa issues, enforcement of immigration laws, transportation security, and state and local preparedness. Cox argues it is imperative for one committee to have legislative and oversight jurisdiction that is broad enough to allow it to take a "holistic" approach to the myriad issues that arise.

Herbold would not be surprised to learn that, upon hearing of the Cox plan, one prominent committee chairman who would lose considerable turf vowed to fight it with his "dying breath."

It will take time and effort to break that mindset. We need to reform our intelligence gathering. But let's put the brakes on and make sure we get the job done right, not right now.

Mr. Franc, who has held a number of positions on Capitol Hill, is vice president of Government Relations at the Heritage Foundation.