U.S. Sen. Carl Levin's opinion that legislation might be needed to put the brakes on what he described as unfair practices by credit card issuers should spread throughout Congress.

If card issuers don't quickly come forward with policies of their own to end practices that have unnecessarily thrown thousands of families into financial hardship, especially those who have consistently made at least their minimum payments consistently on time, members of Congress should step forward to impose rules that achieve that end.

The credit card industry has gotten out of hand; companies never seem satisfied with their own policies. They inundate cardholders with changes in terms, all with the goal of exacting more and more dollars from those who have demonstrated loyalty to them by accepting and using their products.

And even in regard to those who in mailings with new offers are described as among their best customers, many of the companies are looking for every excuse they can to tack on higher interest charges.

For example, no credit company should be allowed to increase the interest rate of a customer who has made consistently on-time payments of at least the minimum amount sought because that same customer has made a late payment to a different credit card company.

But rules governing some cards allow that to happen. And, it is happening.

A prohibition against that practice should be included if legislation is in fact passed by Congress.

Levin, a Michigan Democrat, chairs a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee that on Tuesday questioned top executives of Bank of America Corp., Discover Financial Services LLC and Capital One Financial Corp. Much of the criticism at the hearing stemmed from the practice of some card issuers to hike customers' interest rates if their credit score has gotten lower, even if only because customers have obtained an additional card from another company or department store.

Roger Hochschild, Discover's president and CEO, said interest rate decisions based on credit scores, not on customers' past payment history, is "important criteria for how to manage risk and pricing."

Obviously, to his company, being a good Discover customer by itself no longer counts.

Levin voiced a better argument.

"The bottom line for me is this: When a credit card issuer promises to provide a cardholder with a specific interest rate if they meet their credit card obligation, and the cardholder holds up their end of the bargain, the credit card issuer should have to do the same."

That should be the foundation for any legislation that Congress enacts.

Unlike what some card issuers would like people to believe, a falling credit score doesn't necessarily mean a less credit-worthy customer, or higher-risk customer. In some instances, it means that a customer has grown tired of a certain company's rules, rates or products and has decided to move on to another company for future credit.

Credit card issuers and the so-called FICO scores in fact discourage freedom of choice with their potential bases for punishing customers who have exercised free-choice rights or who, maybe through an oversight, emergency or other circumstance beyond their control, have made a late credit card payment.

Another important focus point of Tuesday's hearing — the second dealing with purported unfair credit card practices — dealt with confusing explanations surrounding many card issuers' changes in terms. Card issuers should be required to provide a clear, concise explanation of changes, rather than a small-print brochure with confusing language — unfortunately, that now is the rule, rather than the exception.

A credit card customer shouldn't need a lawyer to interpret changes in terms.

After the first hearing, which took place in March, Levin introduced legislation to restrict the ways credit card issuers can increase interest rates. Why it took nine months to reach the point of the second hearing is puzzling.

Regardless, what is certain is that customers — mostly good customers — shouldn't be subjected to unfair practices by the companies that solicited their business.

If Congress fails to act, it will deserve as much criticism and consumer anger as the credit card companies are increasingly evoking.

Congress' current probe into credit card company practices must not end up as merely an exercise in lip service that subsequently falls victim to the credit issuers' lobbyists.