[国会记录:2007年12月3日(参议院)][第S14703-S14705页]斯佩克特先生关于提出的法案和联合决议的声明:S. 2402。规定在某些民事诉讼中由美国替代的法案;司法委员会。SPECTER先生。主席先生，我希望向大家介绍《2007年外国情报监视替代法》(pdf)，以替代联邦政府的电话公司的诉讼挑战所谓的恐怖主义监视项目。这是一个非常复杂的问题，我已与司法委员会的同事详细讨论。它确实提出了一些非常重要的问题，我的分析开始于承认电话公司的良好公民身份，无论他们做了什么。我们仍然不知道那是什么。但我认为，鉴于这里发生的情况，授予所谓的“追溯豁免”是不恰当的。美国立法替代品代替任何电子通信服务公司提供通信与情报活动由总统授权在9月11日2001年1月17日,2007年,和设计检测或阻止恐怖袭击对美国为了替换应用,电子通信服务提供商必须已收到司法部长或情报机构负责人的书面请求，表明该活动已获得总统授权并确定为合法。如果供应商在超出书面要求的情况下援助了政府，该法案将使供应商陷入任何多余援助的困境。另一方面，如果司法部长证明电子通信服务提供商只做了政府要求的事情，政府将被替换。一旦替代发生，联邦和州法院将被指示从行动中驳回提供者。 This legislation provides that plaintiffs in these cases may continue to send third-party discovery requests such as Rule 45 subpoenas to the electronic communications service providers after they have been dismissed. Moreover, the bill provides that plaintiffs may also deem provider admissions as Government admissions in their case against the Government. My legislation provides that the Government will not have sovereign immunity in the 40 or so cases currently pending in the California Multi-District Litigation. This bill provides authority for the U.S. to remove actions from State court to Federal court. Notably, the legislation is intended to ensure that the Government can only assert those defenses the electronic communications companies may assert under current law. On the other hand, nothing in the bill is designed to increase or diminish the ability of the Government to assert the States Secret privilege. The legislation is carefully crafted so as not to disturb plaintiffs' standing to bring their claims against the Government. Now, recognizing the telephone companies are good citizens, I am prepared to see their involvement held to the minimum. We hear concerns about them being involved in litigation. Well, I don't know if there's much litigation [[Page S14704]] for them to be involved in once the Federal Government is substituted. Some express dismay over the continued burden of discovery. I am not convinced there will be much further discovery here. Some have expressed a reticence to having their service technicians, in-house counsel, and other employees called as witnesses. Yet, I don't know that they are necessarily going to be witnesses. We can't judge that now. I believe there are very important--perhaps even constitutional-- privacy issues here that ought to be subjected to judicial review. We know that important litigation in the Federal court in San Francisco, Judge Walker has declined to dismiss a challenge to the Terrorist Surveillance Program on State secrets grounds. I don't think Congress can stand by, and in the face of what has happened, give carte blanche, a free ticket, grant retroactive immunity to suggest to future administrations that they can ignore separation of powers and they can ignore Congressional oversight and just run roughshod over the entire process without being held accountable. The better practice is to allow judicial proceedings to take their course and let the courts make their own determinations. I strongly encourage all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to carefully consider this bill as we begin to debate the related FISA Amendments Act of 2007. ______