Message-ID: <4482802.1075848092158.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 11:11:00 -0700 (PDT) From: richard.shapiro@enron.com To: steven.kean@enron.com Subject: CFTC Reauthorization Cc: chris.long@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: chris.long@enron.com X-From: Richard Shapiro X-To: Steven J Kean X-cc: Chris Long X-bcc: X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_4\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: KEAN-S X-FileName: skean.nsf I agree w/ chris's recommendation- you too? ---------------------- Forwarded by Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES on 08/10/2000 06:10 PM --------------------------- Chris Long@ENRON 08/10/2000 05:12 PM To: Mark E Haedicke/HOU/ECT@ECT, Steven J Kean/HOU/EES@EES, Richard Shapiro/HOU/EES@EES, Mark Taylor/HOU/ECT@ECT, Joe Hillings/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Cynthia Sandherr/Corp/Enron@ENRON, Tom Briggs/NA/Enron@Enron cc: raislerk@sullcrom.com, Allison Navin/Corp/Enron@ENRON Subject: CFTC Reauthorization At his request, I met Lee Sachs, Assistant Treasury Secretary, who had requested the meeting after a brief conversation recently. Lee said that senior-level negotiations led by Secretary Summers were initiated last week between the CFTC and SEC and that progress was being made on the single stock futures issue (the major issue postponing movement of the legislation). As you know, the House completed committee work on HR 4541 before it recessed. The bill will now is pending before the Rules Committee where differences will be worked out between the three different Committee versions (Agriculture, Commerce, and Banking). The Senate Agriculture Committee passed out the Senate version in July. However, the bill is not moving quickly in the Senate due to Senator Phil Gramm's desire to see significant changes made to the legislation (not directly related to our energy language). Last week at the Republican Convention, I asked the Senator about the bill and he said they were working on it, but much needs to be changed for his support. More telling perhaps, were Wendy Gramm's comments that she would rather the current bill die if a better bill can be passed next year. What this means is that we must, at the least, remove Senator Gramm's opposition to the bill to move the process and more importantly seek to gain his support of the legislation. Lee Sachs message was just that. I told Lee that we shared his desire to move the legislation as long as it contains a full exclusion for all non-agriculture commodities (including metals). He said that we would have a difficult time defending the metals provision politically. But, Lee said "we would not find Treasury opposition to the House Commerce Committee language" (which includes favourable language on energy and metals). This is a positive development, because it isolates the CFTC from its key defenders and I hope ensures no veto threat on our issues. However, I do not expect Treasury to be vocal in support of our position. It is clear that Congressional leaders and the Administration want to get this bill done this year and there remains a good opportunity for enactment. However, with less than 20 or so legislative days left, we need Senator Gramm to engage. A call from Ken Lay in the next two weeks to Senator Gramm could be an impetus for Gramm to move his staff to resolve the differences. Gramm needs to fully understand how helpful the bill is to Enron. Let me know your thoughts on this approach. I am prepared to assist in coordinating the call and drafting the talking points for a Ken Lay/Sen. Gramm call.