Democrats are cautious of President Bush’s proposed Department of Homeland Security, said university experts.

It would be the hub of the American anti-terrorism effort, with 22 federal agencies merging to complete the 170,000-employee department.

With the merge, agencies would be shifting focus from serving civilians to fighting terrorism, said Steffen Schmidt, university professor of political science.

“There are a lot of groups that are worried about what’s going to happen to some of these agencies,” he said.

Schmidt said the Coast Guard is a good example because as an anti-terrorism organization, its current primary job of boat inspection may take a back seat.

For the past three weeks, the Senate has been debating the fine details of the department. Democrats are reluctant to give Bush broad employee management powers, which he believes are necessary to meet looming terrorist threats. He has threatened to veto the bill without the employee powers.

If the Homeland Security Department is adopted, the result would be “one of the biggest reorganizations of the federal government in 50 years,” Schmidt said.

“We want to do it carefully,

he said. “I know this is urgent and terrorism is a real problem, but there is the concern that the bureaucracy will become much more political than it’s been.”

Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., has expressed the need for careful examination of Bush’s proposal.

“Congress must never act recklessly,” said Byrd, Senate Appropriations Committee chairman. “My concerns are based in the Constitution.”

Bush’s executive powers will increase and federal jobs may be eliminated and created at will if the department is established, Schmidt said. “Anything that would make federal employees easily hired and fired, [Democrats] traditionally have opposed,” he said, because Democrats are pro-labor. “It’s a part of the Democratic Party’s philosophy, which is one reason they don’t feel very comfortable with this.”

Hoping to please both parties, Sens. Zell Miller, D-Ga., and Phil Gramm, R-Texas, have put together a Bush-endorsed proposal that would give Bush more limited flexibility over civil service employees. The proposal would put restrictions on Bush’s ability to waive union protections for national security reasons.

“Their proposal would provide the new secretary of homeland security much of the flexibility he needs to move people and resources to meet new threats,” Bush said. “It will protect every employee of the new department against illegal discrimination and build a culture in which federal employees know they are keeping their fellow citizens safe.”

Schmidt said both Republicans and Democrats should be cautious of giving the executive branch too much power.

“If a president is suddenly able to arbitrarily hire and fire people and move them around . it would be like writing a blank check for the president to deploy a lot of people and money in different ways as he sees fit.”

Molly Scherrman, president of the ISU Democrats, said the group discusses similar issues in its weekly meetings.

“I think most people agree there should be a balance of power,” said Scherrman, senior in psychology. “That’s why we have a president but also a Senate and House, so [the president] doesn’t gain all the control. The executive branch is set up the way it is to prevent one sole person from dictating everything.”

Michael Dale, chairman of the ISU College Republicans, said requesting more executive power is an appropriate measure for Bush to take.

“During times like this, we need to support the president,” said Dale, sophomore in liberal arts and sciences. “His general idea is that we need to be a united country and don’t need to bicker about politics, just get the job done. Democrats just want to slow the process down and don’t want to give [Bush] credit for that good idea.”

– The Associated Press contributed to this story