CURRA includes a provision to allow all federal credit union charter types to adopt underserved areas and new sections that would allow credit unions to offer payday lending services to anyone in their fields of membership and encouraging small-business development in rural communities. It is a less comprehensive version of the Credit Union Regulatory Improvement Act (H.R. 1537), a measure that would grant credit unions greater enhancements.

The bankers' concerns centered on their belief that the measure gave credit unions permission to provide more services that would provide competition to banks. They also maintained that the measure would let 2,700 credit unions would allow entire cities such as Washington, D.C., to be added to their membership without a common bond among the members in the name of serving underserved areas.

Lobbyists for credit unions alleged that bank lobbyists broke a tacit agreement that both sides would not object to pending regulatory relief measures benefiting the other group.

But Steve Verdier, the senior vice president of the Independent Community Bankers Association said that was not the case.

"We agreed not to object if the bill had been better. It doesn't adequately clarify our concerns about how to define an underserved area," he said.

CUNA Vice President of Legislative Affairs Ryan Donovan said the definitions in CURRA are the same as those in the existing laws. He added that in subsequent negotiations we are "not inclined to negotiate language" on that part of the measure.

The American Bankers Association and Verdier's association spearheaded an effort that included e-mails, phone calls and in-person lobbying on Capitol Hill.

The community bankers group had 300 members in Washington for a previously scheduled government affairs conference and their members criticized CURRA during discussions with lawmakers, according to Verdier.

Donovan said that while bankers got a head start in lobbying, his members caught up, and he heard from his congressional contacts that the credit unions case was presented adequately.

Credit unions also sent e-mails and phoned lawmakers' offices.

CUNA used new media technology: A shirtsleeves-clad CUNA President Dan Mica appeared in a YouTube posting urging credit union executives to lobby their House member and combat the misinformation being spread by the bankers.

Some lawmakers and staff members also raised concern about an analysis by the Joint Tax Committee that the measure's tax provisions would cause a loss of revenue. Lobbyists for both CUNA and NAFCU disputed that conclusion but said that is something that has to be worked out before the vote on CURRA is rescheduled.

If the leadership brings up CURRA later this year, credit union lobbyists said it would probably happen under rules requiring only a simple majority to pass. An obstacle facing the measure last week was that it was scheduled to be considered under an expedited procedure and would have required a two-thirds majority to pass.

House leaders decided late Monday night to pull the bill from Tuesday's schedule. On Tuesday, lobbyists for the top trade associations huddled in-person and phone with key representatives and their staffs. In an e-mail to the CUNA board and Credit Union League presidents obtained by Credit Union Times, Mica wrote, "if I tried to describe to you what went on during the course of the day, you would think I had lost my mind. The calls and conversations with congressional staff and the various key players changed direction and rationale virtually every few minutes."

While credit unions hold their own in grassroots, the banks contribute a lot more money to campaigns than the credit unions. Since 2007, individuals and organizations connected with commercial banking industry have contributed $17.1 million to federal candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington research and advocacy group. People and organizations affiliated with credit unions have given $1.6 million during the same period.

–[email protected]