As much as I'drather eat glass than write about the NCUA's proposed risk-basedcapital rule yet again, the issue was front and center at NAFCU's Congressional Caucus.

While elected officials have a bad habit of telling people whatthey want to hear and failing to back it up, I was struck by thestrong words from Caucus speakers on the topic.

I had assumed (and still do) that members of Congress signedletters questioning the proposal because it's not a topic thatwould force them to take sides against banks. Opposing additionalregulation these days is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's apretty safe position and anyone can do it.

However, Caucus was the first time I had heard so many electedofficials say the House Financial Services Committee might actuallycall in NCUA Chairman Debbie Matz to defend the rule.

If they really intend to do so, they'd better hurry. By allaccounts, the committee isn't willing to take up this topic or manyothers before the November elections. The NCUA will likely finalizethe rule this year, which leaves a window of only a few weeks.

The NCUA has expressed frustration at continued opposition tothe proposal. Credit unions said they wanted less restrictive riskweights and a longer implementation period, and the NCUA said itwill include those changes in the final rule. Why the continuedresistance?

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said risk-based capital is inappropriate forcredit unions. That statement made me scratch my head.

The market forces that would require extra capital to guardagainst concentration risk are the same for credit unions as theyare for banks. Why wouldn't a credit union that is heavilyconcentrated in business loans, mortgages or specific investmentsneed extra capital to guard against that risk? Does anybodyhonestly think the economy is so strong the Great Recession can'thappen again? Has Wall Street changed its ways? Will CFPB rulesprevent the next asset bubble from forming? Probably not.

I understand that the cooperative nature of credit unions meansmany serve niche markets. Restricting a credit union's ability toinvest in that niche will affect its ability to serve its members.Plus, reducing revenue will make it harder to build morecapital.

The other side of the coin, however, is that concentration isrisky. In addition, the collapse of U.S. Central and second tiercorporates taught the industry a hard lesson about how risk isshared by all credit unions. We can't risk the stability of all topromote the success of one.

Members of Congress often parrot the overused line that creditunions didn't cause the Great Recession, and therefore, shouldn'tbe subjected to regulation designed to prevent the next one.

But do they really believe that? If that were the case, Congresswould be more supportive of legislation that would reduceregulatory burden on credit unions. Why can't we get enough votesto raise the member business lending cap, allow for supplementalcapital or carve out more credit union exceptions to the CFPB'sinterpretation of Dodd-Frank?

Take, for example, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's (R-Mo.) strong words on the NAFCUCaucus stage regarding Matz' letter opposing his amendment that would have requiredCongressional study of the RBC rule before it went into effect.Luetkemeyer spoke as if he was seriously offended by the request,saying researching the effect of regulation is Congress' job.

So why didn't Luetkemeyer fight harder to include the amendmentin the bill? Credit union trades downplayed the failure of theamendment, saying Luetkemeyer and House Financial Services ChairmanJeb Hensarling (R-Texas) were committed to adding credit unionparity to the bill before it reached the House floor.

I watched the live stream of that mark-up. They gave theamendment about 10 seconds. If you blinked, you would have missedit.

Seems to me if they were that committed to credit union parity,they would have just passed the ding dang amendment. Congressionalsupport of credit unions ends when bankers step into the room.Congress can't expect credit unions to accept tough regulationswithout getting some relief in return.

I hope NAFCU members visiting Capitol Hill weren't too starstruck demand tit for tat. If Congress won't go to bat for creditunions, they shouldn't expect credit union support. Period.

Heather Anderson is executive editor of CU Times. She can bereached at [email protected].