A pending deal allowing a company from the United Arab Emirates to oversee operations at key U.S. ports is unleashing an avalanche of congressional opposition, but the maritime security industry appears divided about the gravity of the handover to Dubai Ports World.

A $6.8 billion deal allows the company to purchase terminals at several U.S. ports currently operated by a British company. Some observers downplay the threat posed by a state-owned company running U.S. port operations. They say foreign ownership of U.S. port terminals is a common practice and that the company controlling the ports is not nearly as important as the federal government having adequate and standardized port security measures in place.

“The issue of who owns the terminal is less important for me than whether you actually have the security measures in place at a credible level — are they adequately resourced and do we have enough oversight of them,” said Stephen E. Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander and a fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations who tends to favor tighter port security.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez has a similar view. At a press briefing on Tuesday, he said that regardless of who controls the ports, the government maintains security. “Port security is still within the hands of state and local officials, federal officials like the Coast Guard,” he said.

Flynn and others also say foreign ownership of terminals at U.S. ports is fairly common.

Indeed, Dubai Ports World is not the first state-owned company to take control of U.S. port operations. APL — the container transport arm of a company owned by the investment arm of the Singapore government — runs Eagle Marine terminal, a major port operation at the Port of Los Angeles, for example. Dubai Ports World, some contend, is similar to any other foreign company that has purchased a U.S. terminal.

“DP world, and the fact that it’s owned by the UAE government does not seriously increase the threat to the United States,” said Dr. Joseph Bouchard, a retired Navy captain and a former port security expert at the National Security Council. “The primary point that I think needs to be made and is being overlooked in all this is that there are security concerns with any international company that operates in the U.S.”

Flynn also pointed out that even when terminals are operated by foreign companies, the longshoremen and front office workers still tend to be hired locally, which he said should mitigate concerns about foreign nationals sabotaging U.S. port operations.

Top-level managers, said Bouchard, are vetted by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to ensure they will not pose a national security threat.

President Bush said on Air Force One on Tuesday that he will veto any legislation blocking Dubai Ports World from taking over port operations, setting the stage for a battle between the Bush administration and Congress.

Lawmakers have raised concerns about CFIUS’ involvement in approving the Dubai Ports World acquisition of terminal operations at the six major ports — Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Treasury spokesman Tony Fratto told CQ Homeland Security that CFIUS reviewed and approved the deal back in December, pending Dubai Ports World meeting some regulatory obligations.

But many lawmakers say they didn’t know about the deal until last week.

On Tuesday, Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., and Rep. Peter T. King, R-N.Y., promised they would introduce “emergency legislation” to put the sale on hold until CFIUS again reviews the sale and Congress approves it. Schumer said the bill would be introduced when both congressional chambers reconvene on Monday, Feb. 27, just days before the terminals are scheduled to be turned over to Dubai Ports World.

Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said on Tuesday he would consider introducing legislation to put the deal on hold and call for an investigation unless the administration does so on its own.

Lawmakers’ concerns seem to stem largely from confusion over the CFIUS process for approving foreign investments that may have national security implications.

“A state that isn’t willing to speak out forcefully against terrorism is going to control the ports in six of our large cities, including probably our most important port within Louisiana,” Christopher Shays, R-Conn., told CQ Homeland Security. “I’m just wrestling with how that could happen.”

Shays said he would hold hearings on the matter if another committee did not. Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., the ranking member on the House Homeland Security Committee, has called for a series of hearings on the approval of foreign ownership of U.S. transportation and infrastructure assets.

Security experts say foreign ownership does raise some potential for their worst fears to come to pass: a well-placed insider could sabotage a shipping container, which former Customs commissioner Robert C. Bonner once called “the Trojan horse of the 21st century.”

The fear, experts say, is that terrorists could smuggle a dirty bomb inside one of the approximately 9 million containers that enter U.S. ports every year, blowing up a port and virtually shutting down commerce for several days.

Managers at foreign-owned terminals in the United States would have access to “terminal operating systems” that would allow them to manipulate cargo manifests, making it harder for Customs officials to know which containers needed further scrutiny. Well-placed saboteurs could also advise terrorists on the shipping routes and locations of containers needed for terrorist operations, said one maritime industry source who declined to be named because of the sensitive nature of the Dubai Ports World deal.

“Knowledge of the terminal operating system, with the ability to get into a carrier database, can allow complete manipulation of the system,” the source said.

Caitlin Harrington can be reached at charrington@cq.com and Patrick Yoest can be reached as pyoest@cq.com.