Debbie Dingell: “I would observe that neither I nor Strom Thurmond were in this work at the time that the precedent was established. It…”

“I would observe that neither I nor Strom Thurmond were in this work at the time that the precedent was established. It is clear to me, however, this is a sound precedent by reason of the duration of its existence and the fact that it has been unchallenged during those periods of time. So having established that we have a sound and long-lived precedent that has served this body well, I believe it would be useful for us to adhere to that precedent. I would observe that the requirement here is that we are discussing a limitation on expenditures. The limitation comes into play not because the individual who must function under the limitation is required to do anything but simply because he has had matters brought to his attention. It imposes no duty on him other than to behave in conformity with the limitation when certain matters have been brought to his attention. The only requirement is that when information is brought to the attention of the officers who would be responsible for implementing the expenditure of these public moneys that they cannot then spend the money, a very sensible limitation and one which makes an extraordinary amount of sense.”