Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Banking Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate rejects amendment to bar cooperative fee agreements in ATM bill; committee language retained
Summary
After extended debate, the Senate rejected a sponsor amendment to remove committee language permitting cooperative ATM groups to set a uniform fee; the underlying Automated Teller Machine bill passed as amended. Supporters said the change formalizes existing cooperative practice; opponents raised consumer choice and potential antitrust concerns.
Senators spent an extended portion of the Feb. 21 floor session debating whether cooperative agreements among financial institutions should be able to fix the fee that member institutions charge ATM users. The dispute played out on Senate Bill 162, an Automated Teller Machine bill that addressed ATM safety and several technical items and carried a committee amendment affecting fee‑setting by shared ATM groups.
Senator David Watson, sponsor of the floor amendment seeking to delete the committee language, argued the amendment would restore the department bill and preserve the current statutory prohibition on cooperative agreements that restrict an individual institution’s ability to set fees. "The current law reads, an agreement to share automatic tellers may not prohibit, limit, or restrict..." Watson said while explaining the intent to keep fee setting individual and market driven (SEG 2950–2956). He urged the Senate to preserve consumer choice and avoid enshrining a binding cooperative fee in statute.
Credit union proponents and authors of the committee amendment, including Senators Black and Hilliard, said the change would formalize an existing cooperative practice that allows credit unions to provide access to members without imposing a barrier. Senator Black told colleagues the amendment would let credit unions operate their shared network in a way that protects members' access. Senator Reese argued supporters were advancing consumer choice: "They would like to be at 0. So I think that's and that's good for the consumer, and it's good for competition." (SEG 2926–2930).
Opponents, including Senator Watson and others, warned that written cooperative fee agreements could limit institutions' independent pricing and raised questions about antitrust exposure and state statutory definitions of credit unions that cross jurisdictions. Senator Howe asked if litigation and antitrust issues were pending and cautioned the body to exercise care (SEG 3155–3164). The transcript records senators on both sides declaring interest or past service with credit unions.
On the amendment vote, the chair directed a standing count; the clerk's announced tally for the Watson amendment was 9 in favor and 11 opposed, and the chair declared the motion failed (floor record, SEG 3203–3208). With the committee language intact, SB162 then advanced to third reading and final passage on a recorded vote (announced 26 aye, 1 nay, 2 absent) (SEG 3231–3238).
What this means: The final version of SB162 retains committee language allowing cooperative shared agreements (for credit unions or banks that form a lawful cooperative) to set a fee by agreement among members. Supporters say the change codifies existing cooperative practice and can reduce or eliminate fees for members; opponents said written agreements could restrict institutions' independent pricing and raised antitrust and jurisdictional questions that could require future legal review.
Provenance: Full debate and votes are recorded in the Senate transcript (discussion and amendment debate from SEG 2446 through SEG 3238; amendment vote and final passage SEG 3199–3238).
