Armyn stressed how important it was for her credit union, the trades and the NCUA to speak with one voice on the issue.

"We had met with Treasury, we had met with the NCUA, it was a big team effort to make sure we were all in alignment on the language and having the bill released," she said. "While I am thrilled my credit union is being recongized for our long history of political advocacy, supplemental capital was a huge team effort. We're thrilled to have been a part of it, but we were not all of it."

Reps. Peter King (R-N.Y.) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) originally introduced the bill in 2012. The legislation was re-introduced in the 113th session of Congress and again this year in the 114th session of Congress.

Most federal credit unions can only raise capital through retained earnings, which limits their ability to expand more effectively and offer better options to eligible consumers.

Larry Fazio, NCUA director of examination and insurance, requested congressional action on supplemental capital during a recent Senate Banking Committee hearing on regulatory relief.

The Capital Access for Small Businesses Act would permit the NCUA board to allow credit unions to accept other forms of capital, as long as the NCUA's action does not alter the cooperative ownership structure of credit unions.

Armyn, a member of NAFCU's legislative committee, said the greatest challenge to tackling the issue was explaining the need for action to members of Congress and their staffers.

First, she pointed out, capital acquisition is limited. "Then, having an MBL cap on top of that, where you can't make up the difference with business loans, makes it a double whammy," Armyn said. "So, trying to explain how they all work together has probably been our greatest challenge."

NAFCU Vice President of Legislative Affairs Brad Thaler said the trade group seeks direct member input regarding the legislative priorities of credit unions.

"We bounce ideas off of them. If we decide what issues to pursue or discuss strategies, the members provide the NAFCU staff and the NAFCU board important feedback in the process. Linda is active in legislative issues," said Thaler, who added he has known Armyn for more than 10 years.

Armyn has always been a strong advocate for credit unions, including doing stellar work with Rep. King's office to get the congressman comfortable with the legislation personally, he added.

"[He] was hearing from the constituents back home about the importance of this legislation, which aided our efforts here in Washington as a trade association," Thaler said.

Armyn said the NCUA's proposed risk-based capital rule has elevated the importance of the supplemental capital issue.

"When the risk-based capital proposal came out, people started paying more attention to the importance of supplemental capital from an industry perspective," she said.

Since many credit unions will be required to hold more capital if the rule is implemented, Thaler said supplemental capital is an important tool that would help them comply.

"There would be hundreds of millions in capital cushion that credit unions would lose under the risk-based capital proposal," he explained. "Credit unions have a track record of being successful, and many of the institutions have been encouraged by their examiners to have their own policies to try to maintain a cushion above a well-capitalized level."

"Supplemental capital can be an important tool in helping maintain that cushion, particularly with new stricter capital requirements from the NCUA. So, it heightens the need for supplemental capital overall," Thaler said.

Despite its lack of sex appeal, Armyn said lawmakers are willing to listen to her message on supplemental capital, but bank opposition is the predominant roadblock.

"The largest hurdle is getting past the bank opposition," she said. "It's funny because when we didn't have a bill, they said supplemental capital wasn't a big deal. Then we had a bill and it became a big deal and it became worse than MBL."

In Armyn's view, bankers do not understand the structure of the credit union system.

"I don't believe in this day and age you should be fighting not to let other people grow because the competition is always going to be there, If you do your job, you're going to have your share of the market," Armyn said.

She said she would never fight to limit somebody else's ability to do something just because she thought stopping them would give her a competitive advantage.

"Let them have what they need to do their job. Let us have what we need to do our job, and then you fight within your own local markets to get it done," Armyn said.

She reminded the bank lobby that there would be restrictions in place if credit unions were authorized to raise supplemental capital and strengthen their net worth.

"There would be a lot of restrictions placed on it. It would be limited from a percentage basis of how much supplemental capital you could actually put toward your bottom line and it's also very expensive. It's not like it's a quick fix to people's capital," Armyn noted.

Further, supplemental capital is meant for when credit unions need it. She clarified that did not mean in an emergency situation, but for when a credit union has a specific need.

"At the end of the day, credit unions have 6% of the market share, how much competition are we really? I just think that there's plenty of market to go around, so all of this fighting and stopping each other from being the best financial institutions we can be is ridiculous," Armyn said.

James Ballentine, EVP of congressional relations and political affairs at the American Bankers Association, said the trade group has serious concerns about the supplemental capital legislation.

"The bill would allow credit unions to become even more like banks without comparable regulation or the requirement to pay federal taxes. Credit unions can't have it both ways – more bank powers without the responsibilities of bank-like regulation and taxation," he said.

While credit unions are competitively pricing in their local markets, Armyn argued that room exists for both credit unions and community banks.

"I guess that's what annoys the community banks is that they have to compete with us," she said. "However, they have choices about pricing every day as well, and they can choose how they wish to spend and it could be to the shareholders or it can be to their members and we chose to give it to our members because we do not have shareholders and we do not pay our board. Those are the fundamental differences of why we exist so we can give a fair deal and a good value to the members."

Armyn vowed to continue advocating for passage of the supplemental capital bill despite opposition from the powerful bank lobby.

"It's up to us to make the case in a convincing way to our legislators and for the trade associations and get the wins where we can and continue moving along running our businesses," she said.

Armyn acknowledged credit unions are not going to get everything.

"We're going to just try to get what we can," she said. "We don't want to just throw our hands up and say, 'we're not going to try because the banks don't want us to' because that does not help anybody either."

Despite the benefits of the proposed bill, Armyn said she understands supplemental capital is not a silver bullet or a growth strategy.

"I don't think it fundamentally changes who we are. We still have geographic restrictions or field of membership restrictions," she said. "We're still operating as a cooperative. We can't just open everywhere want. It just gives us a little bit of reg relief."