Message-ID: <14458012.1075846337614.JavaMail.evans@thyme>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 02:48:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: tom.briggs@enron.com
To: mark.taylor@enron.com, raislerk@sullcrom.com, steven.kean@enron.com
Subject: Gramm Changes
Cc: cynthia.sandherr@enron.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Bcc: cynthia.sandherr@enron.com
X-From: Tom Briggs
X-To: Mark Taylor, RAISLERK@sullcrom.com, Steven J Kean
X-cc: Cynthia Sandherr
X-bcc: 
X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_Dec2000_1\Notes Folders\Cftc
X-Origin: KEAN-S
X-FileName: skean.nsf

Mark and Steve,

I have previously forwarded to you the Gramm changes that I received from Ken 
Raisler.  I recognise that we want to be extremely cautious about suggesting 
that we support any of the changes.  Nonetheless, it may be worthwhile going 
through the changes to see if they are beneficial to Enron.

For example, the changes being made to solve the "Blackbird Issue" (see p. 29 
and 30 of Gramm's changes) seem to be beneficial for Enron Online.  Also, 
Gramm's Swap exclusion language of section 107 seems broader than the 
existing language.

If Gramm were to ask Ken Lay if we were supportive of these changes how would 
we respond?  I have a hunch our response is that a perfect bill would be 
ideal, but it is not likely that such a goal is attainable in this Congress 
or the next Congress.  Nonetheless, I would appreciate help listing the 
changes that are helpful to enron and those we just don't care about.

Tom