David Vitter: “I wish to emphasize what I stated to the distinguished Senator from California. I tried to meet every legitimate…”

“I wish to emphasize what I stated to the distinguished Senator from California. I tried to meet every legitimate argument. I bent over backward with regard to that issue. Specifically, I point out that the exception in my amendment that says, quite simply, if the spouse lobbyist was a lobbyist a year or more prior to the marriage or a year or more prior to the Member's first election to the House or Senate, then that is an exception, and they can continue lobbying. Every other case is a real problem, a real conflict, and specifically I don't think a grandfather clause that protects folks who are doing it now is appropriate. If it is wrong, it is wrong. If it is a conflict, it is a conflict. If it poses real ethical questions--that is true whether one has been doing it for 10 years or whether one starts tomorrow--I urge all the Senate to reject that grandfather clause. The message of a grandfather clause is simple: Yes, we are going to get serious about ethics, as long as it doesn't do anything in practice, as long as it doesn't affect our friends. I don't think that is the right policy. I don't think that is the right message. I urge all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to support this amendment. The American people are watching this debate. They have seen the leadup to this debate. They have seen the scandals. They have seen the rhetoric in the campaigns, and they are wondering: Is this going to be real or is this going to be a farce?”