Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-Pa.) mirrored Schaefer's comments.

"A lot of people don't realize that if we had lost in the House, in that committee, it would have disassembled the whole credit union movement," Kanjorski told CU Times. "If we had lost the whole thing, a huge percentage of credit union members would have received notes saying that, under a legal decision that was not overturned by Congress, you have to give up your membership at your credit union."

It was a David and Goliath moment for credit unions. The bill passed with the help of thousands of "Davids" and saved the future of credit unions. However, it came at a price.

"There were things that the bankers got into the bill that credit unions did not want," Buddy Gill, senior policy and external relations advisor for the NCUA, told CU Times.

He added that industry players have made many efforts since the law's passage to undo "things that were done in H.R. 1151." 

One in particular was the addition of Prompt Corrective Action, which had been applied to banks prior to the passage of H.R. 1151. PCA was a policy devised during the failure of the Federal Savings and Loan debacle. At that time, the policy applied to banks and savings and loans, and the then chief counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, Richard Carnell, pushed for it to include credit unions. At the time, credit unions managed to fight their inclusion, but during H.R. 1151, the Treasury prevailed.

Carnell pushed to add PCA to H.R. 1151, according to Bill Hampel, who was an economist at CUNA during its passage.

"Basically, Congress wouldn't have passed [H.R. 1151] without the Treasury's blessing, and the Treasury would not bless it without Prompt Corrective Action included," Hampel told CU Times.

When H.R. 1151 was signed into law, several additional bill provisions would come to represent credit union growth obstacles, including a cap on member business lending and a few unaddressed field of membership restrictions.

"I am still frustrated that many of those corrections haven't yet been made," Kanjorski said of the additional provisions in the bill.

These provisions have been the basis for legislative debates over the past 17 years, according to Brad Thaler, vice president of legislative affairs for NAFCU.

"It's a series of provisions, and there are a number of them that we are dealing with today," Thaler said. "PCA relief, MBL cap and everything else. It's been really kind of the overwhelming factor for the past 17 years in credit union history."

Thaler added that NAFCU has worked with members of Congress on these items. He cited a 2001 Treasury study on MBL caps, which stated credit unions were not in direct competition with banks on MBL caps as the justification for removing the MBL caps.

"The mindset was that we'd put this in place and if we have to come back to fix it, Congress can come back and fix it," Thaler said. "We are still trying to get them to do that."

These efforts have yet to come to fruition. In the nearly two decades since H.R. 1151 was passed, little in the way of relief for credit unions has come from Congress.

"We haven't had any major legislation impacting credit unions either in the field of membership or the member business lending area, or risk-based capital come before the House or the Senate, because no one wants to take sides in these things," Mike Radway, senior policy advisor at the NCUA, told CU Times.

However, a damning Treasury Department report published in March 2008, "Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure," said the FOM aspect is less meaningful to the credit union industry. The report cited how easy it is for a relative of a credit union member to join a credit union.

"The passage of H.R. 1151 was vital to the future of many credit unions, but it was arguably the beginning of the end of how Treasury, Congress and the general public would view the credit union industry," Peter Duffy, a managing director at Sandler O'Neill & Partners, said, citing the report.

Duffy added that without the bill, the credit union industry would not be at $1 trillion in assets today.

"Many successful growing institutions would have been halted in their tracks, so it was necessary but it came with some unfinished business," he said.

The report added that "some credit unions have arguably moved away from their original mission of making credit available to people of small means, and in many cases they provide services that are difficult to distinguish from other depository institutions."

The most recent credit union risk-based capital rule from the NCUA has a close look and feel to banks' version of the rule; in addition, a recent call by the NCUA's Office of Inspector General to add S to the CAMEL system puts credit unions and banks in a similar vein.

"What you're seeing is a trend to treat the larger credit unions, from the perspective of regulatory, supervisory and capital treatment, more like banks, which in some ways and eventually is going to exacerbate the lack of parity to banks on small business loans, field of membership and access to capital," Duffy told CU Times.

While credit unions are still a viable consumer option today as a result of the 1998 law, the wins and losses are bittersweet in retrospect. Credit unions got what they wanted, but at a price they are still paying almost two decades later.

Credit unions should not forget the battle that was fought to pass H.R. 1151, Truliant's Schaefer warned.

"The war never actually fully ends," Schaefer said. "It's good to remember your history. We have to keep our history and our stories alive and keep coming back to that."