I have quite a few problems with this in its current construction, although I do support its premise, so I will run down my criticisms and concerns in sequential order.
First off, if we are going to create an oversight committee and establish that it's essentially led by the Senate, why exactly are all Senators inclined to be on it? I think it would be equally logical to have the Speaker appoint a head of the Committee out of the Senators and then allow the citizenry who wishes to be a part of the Committee to be so underneath the Senator. Additionally, I have a slight quibble with the idea of allowing anyone the right to be on the Committee, I think there should be at least some sort of minor application, just to ensure that both the chair and the citizen are in agreement at the seriousness of this topic.
I am also in disagreement over the concept of not having any form of set rules. In the truest sense of the matter, this creates something for the sake of creating something. While I'm not opposed to doing things like this to create action, there are many cases of this Committee that I can see going incredibly lackluster. By lazily avoiding crafting even a singular rule of the operating committee, there is no reason to suggest that the rules may change completely from chair to chair throughout continual Senate terms. If nothing else there should be at least some set rules to allow for some consistency within the committee from term to term.
I also have an issue with a monthly interview process, if for no other reason than sheer excessiveness. While I understand your idea behind this, I do not believe that I can find a way to agree with it and simply oppose this part of the draft. I also take issue with the word "interview" in itself as it does not fit conceptually to me, but that is an incredibly minor issue that I felt OCD-required to note.
Lastly, my issue of informing the party being summoned of questions that will be asked to them is pretty consistently frowned upon in public circles. I am drawn back to the 2016 US Presidental election in which the Clinton camp was given debate questions in advance to prepare for. If this were to pass, I would firmly believe that this would need to be removed.
Apologies for the Onderwall, but I am diametrically opposed to the current construction of this bill, believe it to be another example of overextension, and feel as though it needs to be more thoroughly fleshed out. While I am not opposed to the idea, I am very much opposed to this in its current state.