This interpretation is supported by the Sponsors'
Interpretative Memorandum, 137 Cong. Rec. S15,484 (daily ed. Oct.
30, 1991), which explains that the purpose of the "cannot
recover" language was "to assure that a complaining party does
not obtain duplicative damage awards against a single respondent
under both section 1981 and section 1981A ... [and that] the
complaining party need not prove that he or she does not have a
cause of action under section 1981 in order to recover damages in
the section 1981A action." In addition, the Interpretative
Memorandum of Representative Edwards, co-sponsor of HR-1 (House
Bill) and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights of the House Judiciary Committee which was
responsible for HR-1, asserts that "if a party has a potential
cause of action under Section [1981], but for whatever reason
does not bring it, that party 'cannot recover under section
[1981]'...," and hence can recover under § 1981A. "No party
is under any obligation to proceed under one or the other statute
or to waive any cause of action under either statute as a
condition of proceeding." 137 Cong. Rec. H9527 (daily ed. Nov. 7,
1991).