Republican and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday moved to block a pending deal granting operational control at several U.S. ports to a United Arab Emirates-owned company, drawing a veto threat from President Bush.

The $6.8 billion sale of British-owned Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation to the state-owned Dubai Ports World is scheduled to close March 2.

Members of Congress from both parties are seeking to prove their election-year security credentials by questioning whether the company’s new owners should govern a sector of the infrastructure vulnerable to terror attacks. The issue has also opened a rift between President Bush and congressional Republicans, many of whom said the showdown might have been averted if Congress had received administration briefings.

Bush said he would veto any attempt to block the deal, which involves ports in Baltimore, Miami, New Jersey, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

“After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward,” Bush told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Washington.

“I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, ‘We’ll treat you fairly.’ ”

The Treasury Department’s Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) has already approved the transfer of control, but a growing number of lawmakers want to put the deal on hold while they examine its impact on national security.

Leaders in both houses said they would not allow the deal to proceed without congressional oversight.

“I am very concerned about the national security implications that this could have for the safety of the American people. Therefore, I believe there should be an immediate moratorium placed on this seaport deal in order to further examine its effects on our port security,” House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., told Bush in a letter.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said he would introduce legislation putting the deal on hold unless the administration agrees to a more thorough review.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., welcomed Frist’s concern and called on him to bring the issue to the Senate floor as soon as possible.

“It is already clear this deal should not go forward and I hope he will permit the Senate to act expeditiously in this matter when the Congress returns next week.”

Other lawmakers of both parties joined in the highly concentrated political pressure on the administration to put its approval of the sale on hold.

House Homeland Security Chairman Peter T. King, R-N.Y., and Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., announced they also would introduce legislation blocking the deal. Schumer planned to ask the Senate to approve the legislation by unanimous consent, while King planned to try and get the bill put on the suspension calendar when the House and Senate return next week.

“It’s hard to believe that this administration would be so out of touch with the American people’s national security concerns, that it would use its first-ever veto to save this troubling Dubai ports deal,” Schumer said.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and a leader of House conservatives also said the port deal should be blocked.

Pelosi said she wants the Homeland Security Committee to study how it would affect national security. “America’s ports are often the gateway into and out of our country. The unilateral decision of the Bush administration to allow the sale of port operations to a foreign government raises serious national security concerns,” Pelosi said.

Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., chairman of the conservative House Republican Study Committee, agreed. “We are a nation at war, and to ensure the security of our nation’s major ports the president should put a hold on this contract until it can be investigated,” he said.

A House Republican leadership aide said it had not yet been decided how that chamber would proceed when lawmakers returned from recess, because issues such as committee jurisdiction have not yet been resolved.

Leaders and some members of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee requested a briefing on the sale in a letter sent to Treasury Secretary John Snow and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.

“We believe that the administration should be working more closely with Congress where acquisitions are of such a sensitive nature,” the senators wrote. “In addition, we will be looking into the DHS role in the CFIUS process to ensure appropriate consideration of homeland security concerns.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the committee chairwoman, said she would jointly introduce a resolution with Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., asking the administration to reconsider approval of the sale.

The Democratic National Committee issued a news release crowing that Republicans were only beginning to catch up to Democrats on the issue. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., had announced last week they would introduce legislation to block the port deal.

Although the United Arab Emirates is considered a U.S. ally, critics of the deal say the country — a confederation of seven emirates — was home to two of the Sept. 11 hijackers and was a transfer point for nuclear components shipped to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Critics also contend that the UAE was one of three countries that previously recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, accused the deal’s critics of “anti-Arab, anti-Muslim bigotry.”

“It seems like members of both parties are falling over themselves to find out who is going to be more xenophobic in this whole episode,” he said.

And some outside experts have questioned whether the deal truly poses a security threat to the United States.

“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.”

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.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., urged Congress to proceed with caution in what was a rare news release from a lawmaker not condemning the deal.

“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts,” McCain said. “The president’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully.”

Some outside observers, such as Bruce Josten, executive vice president of government affairs for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, questioned whether a legislative veto of the deal’s approval would carry the necessary legal force. The chamber is “supportive” of the port agreement because it would foster foreign investment and change very little of the actual port operations, Josten said. As the administration has pointed out, the Coast Guard and Customs and Border Protection division of the Department of Homeland Security would still oversee security, he said.

Caitlin Harrington of CQ Homeland Security contributed to this report.

First posted Feb. 21, 2006 12:27 p.m.