This country was attacked by terrorists on Sept. 11, 2001. Three thousand people died. It is important to keep this in mind when considering the reforms sought by the Sept. 11 Commission. The topic of discussion is not one of obscure regulations or porkbarrel spending. It is about protecting the United States from another terrorist attack.

This fact is easy to forget with the current news on the intelligence reform bill currently before Congress. With substantially different versions passed by the House and Senate, the compromise now awaiting a House vote is going to have to wait longer.

House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., lobbied his party to support the bill, but, when he found substantial opposition, he refused to allow any vote on it. It turns out that Hastert has a general policy against moving bills that are not supported by a “majority of the majority,” regardless of their overall support in the House, Senate or White House.

Analysts expect that, if put to a vote, the bill would pass with strong support from Democrats and fair support from Republicans. There is a term for this — it’s called “bipartisanship.”

Believe it or not, Congress does actually have some history of engaging in it from time to time. In 1993, then-House Speaker Tom Foley, D-Wash., permitted a vote on a little thing called NAFTA, even though most of his party disapproved. That agreement, also supported by President Clinton, passed with a majority of Democrats voting against it.

President Bush has urged Republican lawmakers to support this bill and has pressed for a vote as soon as possible. His efforts have been much more intense than they were for the assault weapon ban extension, which was also denied a vote. Although it is heartening to see that the legislative and executive branches are still separate, this is certainly not the right way to prove it.

There are legitimate questions about the bill. By establishing a powerful central figure for the entire intelligence gathering community, information may be homogenized or politicized. But the bill is not being held up for those reasons.

The main ideological opponent of the bill is Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. He chairs the House Armed Services Committee and is upset because the changes would reduce the authority of the Pentagon, which currently commands 80 percent of the intelligence budget. Another strong opponent is Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., who wants stricter immigration controls added to the bill. Neither of these problems deserves to keep the bill from being debated and, ultimately, passed.

This petty bickering over something so crucial to our national security is appalling. Hastert should allow a vote before the end of the session, regardless of support within his own party.