|
|
Enron Mail |
Thanks for the explanation. I agree, though I may not have explained the
context adequately to Ken. Linda Robertson 05/11/2001 04:32 PM To: Steven J Kean/NA/Enron@Enron cc: Subject: Barton Bill You seemed troubled by the call to Barton. This bill may or may not be subsumed by the comprehensive energy bill that Congress undertakes this summer. Both bills have a very difficult, if not nearly impossible, path ahead given that the Democrats are in no mood for compromise. The call to Barton was to: a) repair relationships (and with the Wall Street Journal calling Barton about his troubled past with Enron, repair is needed); b) proclaim victory, even of a limited nature (something I think Enron has not done much of); c) build a further bond with Barton so we would have more input at full Committee (something we will need given the chances that this will go off the track are real); and d) allow Enron to get significant credit for the defeat of price caps. I hear from lots of DC sources that we have not had any success in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Numerous folks at the markup noted in private conversations that this was Enron's first real role in the Committee. Thus, even though this is a very limited bill, the call made sense. I do not think that this means we should call the White House to push the bill with them. The bill itself still has lots of obstacles and many potential threats ahead.
|