WASHINGTON — When a state-owned Arab company attempted to take over the management of some U.S. port facilities this year, it caused a bipartisan uproar in Congress and set off a wave of initiatives aimed at tightening security on the waterfront.
Most of the proposals have foundered. But now, with both parties jostling for the upper hand on national security ahead of November's midterm elections, a port security bill is headed for approval.
The measure -- expected to pass the Senate this week -- would, among other things, impose deadlines on background checks for port workers, expand a program to screen for "dirty bombs" and authorize $400 million to help ports bolster anti-terrorism defenses. A good chunk of that money is likely to go to the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex.
Republicans have made port security legislation a priority since February, after Democrats seized on the Bush administration's approval of the takeover of some U.S. facilities by Dubai Ports World to highlight what they contended was the continued vulnerability of ports to attack. In response to the political furor, the Dubai company backed off from taking over the facilities.
The House and Senate also have approved legislation requiring greater scrutiny of foreign investments in the United States. But there may not be enough time left in the current congressional session for the two chambers to reconcile the substantial differences in those bills.
A stack of other proposals that grew directly out of the Dubai controversy also appears doomed for the year, including prohibitions on foreign companies controlling facilities determined to be crucial to national security.
Asked what happened, Chris Koch, president of the World Shipping Council, said: "Some people took some deep breaths and became rational."
The Dubai controversy put the spotlight on the vulnerability of ports, which some say was shortchanged by the focus on protecting airliners from hijackers after Sept. 11.
Stephen E. Flynn, a retired Coast Guard commander and port security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, called port security legislation a "good step forward," adding: "We still have a ways to go."
But Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) expressed skepticism that the Republican-controlled Congress would back up the legislation's pledges of tougher security measures with appropriations of money.
