they've been long used in cipa. they are things such as stipulation, a summary that is not classified or secret, et cetera. the criteria on which he makes a decision as to whether it is a state secret is whether or not significant harm is reasonably likely to occur, and i think that's one which is in line with some of what i would consider the best judging in the past. the government does have the burden of proving of the likelihood of occurrence and this i think it's very important. i'll save one of the two issues. but that can be legitimating be discussed here today. that the court should weigh the testimony from government experts in the same manner it does and along with any other expert testimony. i think that's very important that the judge makes an independent judgment. he looks at the testimony of the government, evaluates it the way that we learn -- have learned to evaluate expert testimony, namely, the qualifications of the expert, the experience of the expert, the cohesiveness of the testimony and those a

federal courts has been used many times in the federal rules of evidence and fisa proceedings, in cipa and i don't think there's much doubt about their authority to do so. very recently in the el-haramin case out in california. a district court judge in an exhaustive opinion decided that the fisa procedures for treating information obtained under secret fisa warrants preempted invocation of the state secret privilege. another vindication at least at that level. we'll see whether the government appeals or not. of congress' power to legislate evidentiary rules. number three point, federal judges in other context handle every day classified material and secret materials and make decisions as to whether redacted versions can be disclosed or summarize made that can serve the purpose of continuing the litigation without in any way undermining national security. they do it all the time. they have in many cases used masters, informative indices. they use sampling techniques with massive amounts of material. this bill wisely incorporates into the civil law area of state secret privilege many of

encourage the participants in this discussion to spend some time over the weekend to come back and cipa can't do something to correct this. in order to move along and get two of jay-- other subject matters this whole section we will deal with now and then encourage further consideration and discussion. we will leave it that way. >> if there's a possibility for more discussion mccann probably do that with a voice vote. >> all those in favor of the robbers amendment say aye. those opposed, no. the nose hava, and we will leave it. >> i would like a roll call vote. >> why do you were visiting their suggested the discussion was still going to be open, that may be leakages do it by a voice vote but i would defer to your wishes on that. >> dr. coburn had just given to the chairman that extra paragraph that we protect the dissemination on all that to doctors. and then, if we could combine that language to the language that we have work done, both the senator from maryland and myself, and use the word prohibit, i think we are that close with all this debate. i don't know if the ranking member ca