Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: “as I said before, this amendment is one-sided and unfair. If the other side was really interested in letting consumers…”

“as I said before, this amendment is one-sided and unfair. If the other side was really interested in letting consumers and the court and the public know about fees, the other side would say the defense should reveal the fees that the defense attorneys are charging, too. That is fair. That is equitable. They know it. The change I offered to this amendment, which was rejected by the gentleman from Florida, would have corrected that inequality. I would support a fair and equitable disclosure of all attorneys' fees, and those on the other side would not. I would note that later today the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) will offer an amendment to commission a study to look at, among other things, attorneys' fees and get recommendations from experts on how best to ensure that they are fair and reasonable. Let us not put the cart before the horse. Let us not make change and then do a study. If we want to see if fees are fair, if they are equitable, if they are based upon the law, let us do the study and see what the study says; then we can look at the changes. The change should be applicable to the plaintiffs, the change should be applicable to the defendants. I think the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania's approach would better ensure that we are addressing the real problems. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment. If you want to review attorneys' fees on both sides, then support Hart, support the study.”