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

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

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

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

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

The NCUA has expressed frustration at continued opposition to the proposal. Credit unions said they wanted less restrictive risk weights and a longer implementation period, and the NCUA said it will include those changes in the final rule. Why the continued resistance?

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

The market forces that would require extra capital to guard against concentration risk are the same for credit unions as they are for banks. Why wouldn't a credit union that is heavily concentrated in business loans, mortgages or specific investments need extra capital to guard against that risk? Does anybody honestly think the economy is so strong the Great Recession can't happen again? Has Wall Street changed its ways? Will CFPB rules prevent the next asset bubble from forming? Probably not.

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

The other side of the coin, however, is that concentration is risky. In addition, the collapse of U.S. Central and second tier corporates taught the industry a hard lesson about how risk is shared by all credit unions. We can't risk the stability of all to promote the success of one.

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

But do they really believe that? If that were the case, Congress would be more supportive of legislation that would reduce regulatory burden on credit unions. Why can't we get enough votes to raise the member business lending cap, allow for supplemental capital or carve out more credit union exceptions to the CFPB's interpretation of Dodd-Frank?

Take, for example, Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer's (R-Mo.) strong words on the NAFCU Caucus stage regarding Matz' letter opposing his amendment that would have required Congressional 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 amendment in the bill? Credit union trades downplayed the failure of the amendment, saying Luetkemeyer and House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas) were committed to adding credit union parity to the bill before it reached the House floor.

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

Seems to me if they were that committed to credit union parity, they would have just passed the ding dang amendment. Congressional support of credit unions ends when bankers step into the room. Congress can't expect credit unions to accept tough regulations without getting some relief in return.

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

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