i meant the same kind of weight that any expert witness gets and i gave a quote from selly wright in re versus turner in which he describes substantial weight to mean only the weight that is that is appropriate by the demonstration of qualifications and expertise. >> thank you. so you think the -- >> i like the language in the current bill better. i think it's confusing. i'm sorry if i contributed initially to the confusion. >> thank you. now, if the language in the current bill is adequate to account for government expertise, what are the risks, if any of putting in language about utmost -- substantial weight or utmost deference. why shouldn't we do that? >> because i think that the basic principle on the one that was endorsed by the supreme court in reynolds is the judge should be the decision maker as to whether the privilege applies, and he ought to make an independent assessment. other parts of your bill say that. and i think that if you -- it takes away from that underlying principle if you start saying, well, you make an independent assessment but you better give a lot of weig