the USA PATRIOT Act, the counterterrorism bill that the Bush administration pushed through Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks, has been the focus of much controversy in recent months. I voted for the PATRIOT Act, as did the vast majority of my colleagues in the Congress. I believed then, and I still believe, that the PATRIOT Act made many reasonable and necessary changes in the law. For example, the PATRIOT Act tripled the number of Federal agents at the Northern border, an area that had been greatly understaffed. It allocated $100 million to upgrade technology for monitoring the Northern border. It expedited the hiring of FBI translators, who were desperately needed to translate intelligence after 9/11. Most importantly, the PATRIOT Act updated information technology and enhanced information sharing between Federal agencies, especially the FBI and the CIA. As we learned after 9/11, the failure of these agencies to communicate with each other may have prevented law enforcement from uncovering the 9/11 plot before that terrible day. However, the PATRIOT Act contains several controversial provisions that I and many of my colleagues believe went too far. The Bush administration placed Congress in a very difficult situation by insisting on including these provisions in the bill. We were able to amend or sunset some of the most troubling components of the bill. However, many remained in the final version.
Dick Durbin: “the USA PATRIOT Act, the counterterrorism bill that the Bush administration pushed through Congress after the September…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the USA PATRIOT Act and its controversial provisions during a floor speech.
Share
More from Dick Durbin
The American Red Cross declared a national blood supply crisis in the U.S. last month for just the second time ever, which has impacted patients’ ability to be treated for illnesses or undergo surgery.
The lawmakers also emphasized that the Trump Administration’s definition of medical frailty far exceeds what is outlined in the law itself and creates additional onerous barriers for both patients and states.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court order is a temporary procedural win for President Trump as he attempts to pursue these lawless goals—but it doesn’t change the reality that the Constitution empowers states to run our elections, and the rule of…





