What I am suggesting is much easier, both for the chairman and for the witness. The latter has all the time he feels is needed to answer questions, and the chairman only has to intervene in the most exceptional cases, since he knows that the witness is not misusing the time he has. Under the current system, if you have to intervene, you do so when there is little time left, whereas with the other system, you would not intervene, because you'd always give the witness the benefit of the doubt. You can give the witness a little more time and only intervene in the most extreme cases.
I am convinced that my method would be extremely fair to witnesses and that it would be much more efficient for the members of the committee, who have prepared serious questions they would like the witness to answer. This is new, and perhaps the novelty of it is frightening to people. I am convinced that the method you are trying to adopt has already been tested and does not work. I assure you that in the case of an experienced witness, the chairman can intervene three or four times. The fourth time, the allocated time has already expired, the member who asked the questions is disappointed, as well as the other members of the committee, and the witness has attained his objective, which was to not answer questions.