WASHINGTON — Congress is taking steps to upgrade security standards for the nation's ports, but experts say private companies may need a push to invest in safety measures. Shipping remains a sore point for security because federal efforts since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have focused primarily on aviation. But nearly all of the country's trade is conducted by sea, and the large cargo containers offer a tantalizing opportunity to smuggle people or weapons into the country.

"We're already five years into this. What's the plan?" said Stephen Flynn, a security expert at the Council on Foreign Relations. He released a report Wednesday calling on the federal government to set specific standards for security.

The Senate's Homeland Security Committee has endorsed a bill requiring the Department of Homeland Security to develop stricter standards for targeting high-risk cargo overseas. Importers that secure their cargo overseas would be rewarded with speedier service through customs under a program called "Green Lane."

"For years we've known that our ports are vulnerable, and even the 9/11 commission identified them as a possible target for terrorists," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine and committee chairman. "The American people need to know that our ports are secure and the cargo entering our country is safe, no matter whose hands it may have passed through."

The House quickly adopted companion legislation on a vote of 421-2. Reps. Tom Allen and Mike Michaud, both D-Maine, supported the bill.

The biggest dispute so far about the legislation dealt with scanning all cargo before it is loaded onto ships bound for the United States. Only about one container in 20 is now inspected, allowing the occasional immigrant stowaway - and potentially a terrorist weapon.

Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., proposed X-raying 100 percent of cargo for radiological, biological or chemical weapons. But the Bush administration and Republican leaders argued that such scrutiny would cripple global trade.

The House rejected Markey's proposal, which Allen and Michaud supported, on a 202-222 vote.

President Bush commended the House legislation, saying it "will make our people safer and facilitate trade." Nevertheless, the White House Office of Management and Budget warned that the Green Lane provision goes too far in setting standards for how businesses will exchange information about cargo with the government.

In a separate quarrel, the White House opposed legislative efforts to designate $400 million a year for local port security grants.

But Collins and other advocates of specific grants for ports argue that ports will be ignored unless they are singled out for attention, rather than competing against buses, trains and other facilities for funds. Jeff Monroe, the Portland ports director, has told Congress that federal grants are crucial to upgrading security.

Port officials have identified $3.7 billion in security projects, for which the government provided $700 million over five years. In contrast, federal passenger screening at airports costs $4.8 billion a year. The report released by Flynn, a former Coast Guard commander, argued that businesses and industries need the government to set specific security standards - building a higher fence, for example, or requiring identification for workers.

The report said businesses find it difficult to work with the confusing federal bureaucracy. Without federal standards, it said, individual businesses are unlikely to invest in better security because of its cost and because an entire industry is expected to suffer if the weakest part of it is attacked. If one chemical plant is bombed, the expectation is that the public will demand better security at all chemical plants.

"If the administration would just set the rules, the market will build the capability," the report said. In an interview, Collins said ports are likely to close for a period after an attack. But after touring the country's largest ports, she voiced confidence in port authorities being able to distinguish cargo for speedier handling.

"I think it could be done," she said.

Collins said industries are eager for federal regulation to avoid another catastrophe and to set the same rules for all competitors. She said that is why large retailers support the port-security bill and why the chemical industry supports her legislation to regulate those plants.

"I think we can make this sufficiently attractive and we've asked the department to come up with incentives that will see greater participation," Collins said. "In port security, there is an extra benefit if you take additional steps."

Washington D.C. Correspondent Bart Jansen can be contacted at (202) 488-1119 or at: bjansen@pressherald.com

BART JANSEN-Washington D.C. Correspondent/Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.