Mike Welch's column of Aug. 4, "All States Need to Garner Congressional Support". strives to point out that a united effort throughout the movement is needed to garner congressional support for credit union legislation. I agree with Mike and I have long advocated such a united approach. However, let me focus on a key point that Mike made at the start of his column, stating: "The number one purpose of any state and national trade association is to engage in an effective advocacy effort on behalf of its membership." Again, I am in total agreement especially regarding use of the word "effective." The beauty of our federal system of national government is that it allows for the different ideas and viewpoints within the various states to flourish and prosper based on the particular needs of the people within that state. And, in turn, each state has the right (and the obligation in many cases) to approach the issues before it in the best way that suits that particular state. I have watched this phenomenon consistently throughout my political career as a congressional staffer, member of Congress, lobbyist and now as the CEO of what I believe is the best trade association in Washington. Put in the context of Mike's column, it is my experience that the most effective advocacy program for advancing credit union legislation in the Congress is to be mindful of the particular political situations in the various states from which members of Congress come. More specifically, the situations in each state should be the guide as to what political actions should be taken there. Let me be clear: There is no "one size fits all" for advocating credit union issues within the states. Just as each state has a different name, each state also has a different political, economic and (in some cases) cultural situation. In that regard, the state credit union leagues are best situated within the credit union movement in as much as they are on the ground in the states – for determining the most effective approach for dealing with advocacy efforts within their states. Along those lines, there are a number of factors that each and every state must take into account when advocating issues, including legislation. Local elections and issues are just two factors that can have an impact on what actions a League can take, and when. The reality is that Leagues can and do lead the way in generating state-by-state support for credit union legislation. Mike makes reference to the battle to pass HR 1151 in 1998, which I am sure he would agree could not have been possible had it been for the efforts of the Leagues within the states. Finally, let me point out that every League, right now, is contributing to credit union advocacy efforts before the Congress. Every single League has joined in sponsoring Credit Union House. Most are strong partners in Project Zip Code. During September, nearly every League will be sending a contingent to Washington for the National Hike the Hill (in fact, the vast majority of Leagues send a delegation to Washington to "Hike the Hill" each year in addition to participating in the annual CUNA Governmental Affairs Conference). And, in partnership with CUNA, the Leagues have played a key role in making the Credit Union Legislative Action Committee (CULAC) one of the most effective PACs in Washington (and the largest in the credit union movement). In short, national agendas are advanced most effectively when Leagues use their own judgment to determine what works best in their states for their credit union members. That's exactly what they were created to do. Daniel A. Mica President/CEO CUNA Washington, D.C.