Meaning: The quote you provided refers to a controversial deal that sparked a national debate in the United States in 2006. The deal in question involved the acquisition of operations at six major U.S. ports by Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The quote reflects the concern and criticism expressed by some politicians and the public regarding the potential national security implications of allowing a foreign-owned company, particularly one from the Middle East, to manage key infrastructure assets such as port facilities.

The context of this quote is important to understand the controversy surrounding the deal. In 2006, Dubai Ports World, a state-owned company based in the UAE, announced its intention to acquire the British firm P&O, which operated major port facilities in several U.S. cities, including New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, and New Orleans. As a result of this acquisition, Dubai Ports World would effectively take over the management and operation of these key strategic assets.

The proposed deal immediately drew sharp criticism from various quarters, including politicians, security experts, and the public. Many raised concerns about the potential security risks associated with allowing a company owned by a foreign government, and specifically one from a region with a history of terrorism and political instability, to assume control over critical infrastructure at U.S. ports.

Senator Kit Bond, the author of the quote, was one of the prominent voices opposing the deal. His statement encapsulates the fear that the U.S. government was relinquishing control over the security of its ports to a foreign entity, thereby jeopardizing national security. The notion of "outsourcing" the security of the ports to a company from the UAE struck a chord with many Americans who were already wary of potential security threats in the post-9/11 era.

The controversy surrounding the deal prompted a heated and prolonged debate in the U.S. Congress and the media. Critics of the deal argued that it posed an unacceptable risk to national security, as it could potentially allow hostile actors to exploit security vulnerabilities at the ports or gain access to sensitive information about U.S. infrastructure and shipping activities.

In response to the mounting public and political pressure, the Bush administration, which initially supported the deal, faced a significant backlash. Critics accused the administration of neglecting national security concerns in favor of economic interests and international diplomacy. The intense scrutiny and widespread opposition eventually led Dubai Ports World to announce that it would transfer the operations of the U.S. ports to a U.S. entity to allay the security concerns.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding the Dubai Ports World deal highlighted the complex intersection of national security, foreign investment, and economic globalization. It underscored the sensitivities and anxieties that persist in the post-9/11 world, particularly when it comes to foreign ownership and control of critical infrastructure. The episode also demonstrated the significant influence that public opinion and political rhetoric can have on decisions related to national security and foreign investment in the United States.

In conclusion, the quote by Senator Kit Bond captures the essence of the widespread concern and opposition to the Dubai Ports World deal, reflecting the anxieties and fears surrounding the potential outsourcing of port security to a foreign-owned company from the UAE. The controversy surrounding the deal underscores the intricate balance between economic interests and national security, and the enduring impact of public and political discourse on such issues.