250
E. J. Bean
the proceedings. The subcommittee paid their travel expenses so they could afford to participate. The limited resources we had to prepare our hearing witnesses stood in stark contrast to the credit card issuers which could afford, not only to fly in their executives, but also pay top-flight lawyers to prep them on how to make their case and answer tough questions.
Holding the Second Hearing On December 4, 2007, PSI held its second hearing of the year on unfair credit card practices. Like the first hearing, we heard from both credit cardholders and credit card issuers. The first panel took testimony from the three cardholders, Janet Hard, Millard Glasshof, and Bonnie Rushing. Despite some nerves, each calmly explained what’d happened to them and answered questions. On many committees, members of Congress were given just five minutes each to question witnesses, which wasn’t enough time to elicit complicated facts or confront recalcitrant witnesses. PSI was different. PSI practice was to allow the chair and ranking minority member to take 8, 10, and even 15 minutes each in the first round of questioning to draw out the facts, depending upon the agreement reached between them. Other senators could also get more time for witness questions just by requesting it. In addition, PSI practice was to allow multiple rounds of questions so that senators willing to put in the time could ask all the questions they felt necessary to establish the facts. That was one reason PSI hearings ran so long. At the credit card hearing, Senators Levin, Coleman, and McCaskill questioned the cardholders about what had happened to them, including how none of the three had received prior notice of their rate hikes, how the higher rates had impacted their finances, and how all three had been penalized despite years of on-time payments. Senator Carper from Delaware, who was a member of our committee as well as the Banking Committee, tried to elicit some sympathy for the credit card issuers. At one point, he asked Ms. Rushing whether it was fair in evaluating risk for a credit card issuer to consider the fact that a cardholder was missing payments on other debts. She responded that whether or not that was fair, those facts didn’t apply to her; she had paid every one of her bills on time, but her interest rate was hiked anyway. The second hearing panel heard from senior officials at three credit card banks: Bank of America, Capital One, and Discover Financial Services. All three strongly defended raising the interest rates of their cardholders on a
