I assume we will see your reply in short order?
One would imagine that the "logic" they have used ("well, it hasn't been done in 100 years") is flawed on several different levels. The law is on your side, even if it has been used in a long time.
Oh, don't worry... I've got something in the works that will hit them like a ton of bricks...
How they can drag in this one hundred years of precedent is laughable. How any practice or tradition prior to 1996 bears on the enforcement of a law passed in 1996 is unclear to say the least.
Beyond that, there hasn't yet been time to establish a subsequent Senatorial tradition of flouting this law, although the quoted response does get the ball rolling.