The driving idea behind a bill that would reform U.S. intelligence is to tighten communication and bring all the United States' spy organizations under one roof. The legislation was expected to pass in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, but it raises some concerns.

If the bill's provisions for creating a Director of National Intelligence and a National Counterterrorism Center can accomplish the aims of more efficient intelligence in the United States, then maybe it's what our country needs. Unfortunately, all we've heard has been talk and rhetoric - some facts would be nice.

Let's start simple: What exactly would the intelligence director do? It's hard to say, but the idea seems to be that the director would oversee the CIA and pretty much every other U.S. intelligence agency.

Good or bad, there's much more the director will probably have to do. On one hand, a director might tie everything together, smooth out the kinks and allow the system to run more efficiently. On the other hand, the government might have added yet another dead-weight position. It needs to highlight the exact responsibilities and authority entrusted in the director.

Rhetoric is one thing, but people need to know what their government is doing. The public needs to see exactly how interagency communication will get better under the new plan. Right now there's a lot of talk, with no way to measure the end result or effectiveness.

Here's what we do know: The director will be appointed by the president and approved by the Senate. The director will elect how to spend the majority of the U.S. spy budget. The Pentagon, which has been fighting to keep control of its traditional powers, will manage the battlefield aspects.

One problem with the president appointing the director comes from the temptation to include politics in the decision. That temptation, at some point, might be too great for a future president to resist - they could end up putting an unskilled party member or personal friend in the spot.

As of Wednesday, the bill called for more planning from the Secretary of Homeland Security and the creation of a new Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. It also gave more power to intelligence agencies for the pursuit of "lone-wolf" terrorists, who act alone to threaten the country.

The lone-wolf bit seems a little troublesome. Hopefully, if the Oversight Board does its job, governmental intelligence-gathering tactics will stay within the limitations of the Bill of Rights.

The better parts of the bill - the more specific ones - call on the Department of Homeland Security to plan thoroughly. They increase the total number of border control agents by 2,000 every year for the next five years and up the number of customs and immigrations agents by 800 per year for that same duration.

The call for the Department of Homeland Security to tighten up its mission could not be more appropriate, given some of the flaws in the current system.

But until more details come out about the intelligence director, there's not much American citizens can do but wait and hope for the best.