Two Utah lawmakers, coming from different political viewpoints, are pushing bills in this month's Legislature that would require the state's $20 billion retirement fund to disinvest in firms that do business in Iran and the Sudan.

Rep. Julie Fisher, R-Fruit Heights, and Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake, both have bills that could force the Utah Retirement System to take money out of firms — divest their investments — if they have dealings with those two countries, which are abusing human rights in various ways, they say. Fisher's bill deals only with foreign firms, Litvack's with domestic and foreign firms.

Fisher said that the state system should not be investing in a country that sup- ports terrorism, especially against American troops in the Middle East.

"It really bothers me that we are sending our sons and daughters over to Iraq to fight for our freedom when our own state retirement system may be investing in (Iran), the very economy that is trying to destroy us," she said.

The bill is supported by the Retirement and Independent Entities Interim Committee, although it will be heard again during the upcoming general session. During a November committee hearing, Fisher said that "whatever we can do (to fight) the war on terror, we should. And Iran is leading the terrorist movement."

Litvack said the basic idea of the bill he's drafting is to put investment pressure on the Sudanese government to stop the genocide in Darfur.

"It targets the worst offending companies," Litvack said. "We're really going after those that are contributing to the genocide."

These bills reflect a growing trend in financial circles for "socially responsible investments," said Dan Andersen, staff counsel for the Utah Retirement System. But it's also a trend that could cost large public retirement systems considerable money, both through additional consulting costs and potential lost profits, while showing little benefit to the original causes, he said.

The bills, he said, should be rejected because they are "ineffective, costly, burdensome, inefficient, fraught with legal problems and (could well) violate the principles of federalism." Federal courts have already struck down some state SRI laws as being unconstitutional because they stepped into foreign policy, a right reserved for the federal government, Andersen added.