Raúl Grijalva: “As with most of these amendments, the Cannon amendment is clearly unnecessary. Once again, we have, in this bill, an…”

“As with most of these amendments, the Cannon amendment is clearly unnecessary. Once again, we have, in this bill, an ironclad savings clause which I demonstrated earlier. That would be, after the enactment of H.R. 2016. Nothing in this act would diminish or enhance that. The ability to sue plaintiffs that they have under current law, that would not be changed by H.R. 2016, and nothing in this act would change that. Nothing we do here creates a Federal cause of action. Since the creation of the system in 2000, nothing ever has. The proponents of this amendment are looking for a problem where a problem doesn't exist. However, if the proponents of this amendment will feel more comfortable that we include language that simply states the obvious, then we will not oppose the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.”