Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
I'm sure Mr. Van Popta.... I guess I shouldn't be putting words in his mouth. The fact that we did the two studies.... All members of the committee were in consensus about doing the two studies and meeting on the dates that we met on. We heard from witnesses in three meetings for each study, as you already alluded to at the last meeting. The clerk has all the time frames for each of the two panels of witnesses. Then there were the subsequent in camera meetings when we came back in the fall.
The point is well taken, Mr. Bittle. No member should have any issues with that. It was agreed to by everybody on the committee that this would be done.
If it helps the committee, in terms of witnesses, there were no witness names received until November 1. That was the first time that any witness names were sent to the clerk. At that point in time, the clerk contacted me as the chair and alerted me that there was just no way to send anything to them this week because there was just no time to do that. Furthermore, he also alerted me and was sort of questioning...which is also why we are here. It's never been, in his 20-plus years of experience, that the witness of a PMB does not appear first. He was actually waiting for that appearance to be made first as well.
That's just to be clear on the facts. I don't think anybody has any issue with the facts, because the facts are the facts and the dates are the dates.
Mr. Van Popta, I will go back to you for your remarks.