I have two concerns here. I would like to find out about the challenge to the challenges. Perhaps we can get some information and meet.
We haven't, as a practice, used a subcommittee, but because there are so many witnesses, I suggest striking a subcommittee, with one member from each party, to look at it. My concern with three each is that some people might have put in twenty; I think I only put in three or four. I'm more interested in having a balance of voices, as opposed to a multiplicity of voices. I'm not very comfortable about us sitting around striking names on and off lists here in a public meeting, because I don't think it's fair to those groups. That's not what we should do.
If we are going to go this route, after we hear back about the court challenges overall, we could talk about it, strike a subcommittee, look at names, and decide whether two days or three days were needed. Then we could bring that back to the group, and if people in the committee felt somebody had been left out, we could talk about adding at that point.