Credit union debate still hot

However, Lawrence said, "I do mind going to the mat over an issue that absolutely does not affect any policy change in Utah whatsoever. I do resent being put in a position where I have to please half of my constituents at the expense of the other half, or vice versa, over an issue that has no effect on what happens in Utah. This will not change anything."

Alexander disagreed in a fiery summation, saying, "This will affect change in Utah, if we can get Congress to take a look at this — and that will be, I guess, my job if this goes through: to try to get Congress to look at this, and help us so we can make decisions and go forward."

Following the vote, Utah League of Credit Unions president Scott Simpson said he was disappointed by the outcome. He expressed concern that "the focus of debate appeared to be whether or not they should listen to their constituency. I was a little disheartened that the leadership on the Hill was trying to convince members of this body not to listen to their constituents. The word 'representative' must mean something."

Simpson wished the resolution a "speedy death" in the Senate and vowed to continue to urge credit union members to contact their legislators.

"This is an unfortunate bill, and it's passing serves the very few at the expense of the many," Simpson said. "I believe many would like to see it go away."

Meanwhile, Utah Bankers Association president Howard Headlee said it was "absolutely no surprise" that the resolution passed the House, and he expects a similar end in the Senate. When asked about the temperature of this year's debate, Headlee said that credit union advocates "have made way too much out of it, and I think people are tired of it.

"This is nonbinding state- ment of policy," Headlee said. "Legislators were urged to look at the facts. The League of Credit Unions has done a phenomenal job of deceiving the public and confusing some of their members, and they will have to account for that."

---

E-mail: jnii@desnews.com