F. Legislative Oversight

Congress has the power and duty to oversee the rest of the government and to investigate problems that might need new laws. But Congress cannot use this power to threaten or intimidate people or groups for political or social purposes.

Congressional oversight of the federal government is necessary. Departments, bureaus, agencies, and so on can’t operate without someone watching to make sure the worst angels of human nature don’t intervene. It doesn’t take much insight to know that people who operate without any constraints, at all, eventually go too far. And the question of who should do that is simple to answer. Who, in the federal government, is a deliberative body whose proceedings are open to the scrutiny of the people? Congress.

I’ll point out that congressional oversight is not new, in itself. But some provisions in this subsection are new. The first one is stated here. “Congress cannot…threaten or intimidate…for political or social purposes.” Currently, congressional investigations are used to score political points, often at the expense of the individual testifying. It’s ugly, demeaning, and beneath the dignity of Congress. Under this Charter, it’s also prohibited. Every business of any size knows it is possible to hold people accountable, even to reprimand them, without resorting to making a fool of them. That principle should equally bind Congress.

Only a committee or subcommittee may conduct oversight and investigations. The Chair or Vice Chair must write a statement explaining why the investigation is happening. This statement must be made public immediately, unless it contains classified information that must be kept confidential.

This is a simple procedural requirement. It mandates how investigations are called and the requirements for doing so. It isn’t particularly novel, except that it’s enshrined in this document. That said, it is vital. Why? It’s critical because having the stated reason for an investigation published openly holds the committee or subcommittee accountable to the scope of the investigation. If they wander beyond their stated reason for the inquiry, watchdogs can call them on it.

The written minutes of committee and subcommittee meetings must also be made public right away, unless they are classified. No video or audio recordings are allowed. This rule is intended to prevent Members from using investigations as a platform to deliver speeches or pose questions solely for embarrassing witnesses or political opponents. Performative politics is not an appropriate tool for Congress, and investigations must not be used for that purpose.

This is a very specific transparency mandate. Investigations must publish minutes of unclassified deliberations and testimony. They don’t have a choice. But no video or audio recordings are allowed. Why not? The language answers that question. The performative politics I highlighted earlier is expressly forbidden. Congress isn’t allowed to do it.

By removing the recordings, most of the incentive for that kind of grandstanding is gone. Sure, the transcripts will preserve the exchanges, but they won’t have the virality of a recording. This provision shifts the emphasis back to substance. A deliberative body should deliberate – not perform.