To expand on my colleague's concern, most trade issues are fairly complex in that there's not necessarily a “for” or an “against”. When you hear from witnesses, they are experts who offer us their advice. It's possible for the same expert to offer nuanced advice with some arguments for and some against. It's almost impossible to demarcate among witnesses who is for something or against something when questions are not that simple. Maybe we're dealing with a wording issue as opposed to an intention issue.
But every member of the committee has the opportunity to submit names to the clerk. If the committee wants to meet after that to review those names and select from them, it's always possible that there are some that are redundant. For instance, there may be an industry organization that represents individual companies, and as such you may not need to hear from each company; you can simply hear from the industry organization. But it's impossible to do that procedurally and structurally. It is possible once you have names, when the committee is determining the schedule.
I just don't see issues as being so simplistic that we can divide witnesses for and against on every issue. It's pretty tough to do that.