madam speaker , first , i have a lengthy additional statement explaining how this bill is to work . 
we do not have the time in general debate for me to give this statement on the floor , so i will insert the statement relative to the intent of the managers of the bill in the record at this point . 
madam speaker , i would like to provide a brief summary of the provisions in sections 4 and 5 of s. 5 , the class action fairness act of 2005 . 
section 4 gives federal courts jurisdiction over class action lawsuits in which the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $ 5 million , and at least one plaintiff and one defendant are diverse . 
overall , new section 1332 ( d ) is intended to expand substantially federal court jurisdiction over class actions . 
its provisions should be read broadly , with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if removed by any defendant . 
if a purported class action is removed under these jurisdictional provisions , the named plaintiff ( s ) should bear the burden of demonstrating that the removal was improper . 
and if a federal court is uncertain about whether the $ 5 million threshold is satisfied , the court should err in favor of exercising jurisdiction over the case . 
the sponsors intend that in a case seeking injunctive relief , a matter be subject to federal jurisdiction under this provision if the value of the matter in litigation exceeds $ 5 million either from the viewpoint of the plaintiff or the defendant , and regardless of the type of relief sought ( e.g. , damages , injunctive relief , or declaratory relief ) . 
similarly , in assessing the jurisdictional amount in declaratory relief cases , the federal court should include in its assessment the value of all relief and benefits that would logically flow from granting the declaratory relief sought by the claimants . 
for example , a declaration that a defendant 's conduct is unlawful or fraudulent will carry certain consequences , such as the need to cease and desist from that conduct , that will often `` cost '' the defendant in excess new subsections 1332 ( d ) ( 3 ) and ( d ) ( 4 ) ( b ) address the jurisdictional principles that will apply to class actions filed against a defendant in its home state , dividing such cases into three categories . 
first , for cases in which two-thirds or more of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are citizens of the state in which the suit was filed , subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 4 ) ( b ) states that such cases will remain in state court . 
second , cases in which more than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class or one or more of the primary defendants are not citizens of the forum state will be subject to federal jurisdiction since such cases are predominantly interstate in nature . 
finally , there is a middle category of class actions in which more than one-third but fewer than two-thirds of the members of the plaintiff class and the primary defendants are all citizens first , the court should consider whether the claims asserted are of `` significant national or interstate interest. '' under this factor , if a case presents issues of national or interstate significance , that argues in favor of the matter being handled in federal court . 
second , the court should consider whether the claims asserted will be governed by laws other than those of the forum state . 
under this factor , if the federal court determines that multiple state laws will apply to aspects of the class action , that determination would favor having the matter heard in the federal court system , which has a record of being more respectful of the laws of the various states in the class action context . 
the third factor is whether the class action has been pleaded in a manner that seeks to avoid federal jurisdiction . 
the purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether the plaintiffs have proposed a `` natural '' class that encompasses all of the people and claims that one would expect to include in a class action , as opposed to proposing a class that appears to be gerrymandered solely to avoid federal jurisdiction by leaving out certain potential class members or claims . 
if the federal court concludes evasive pleading is involved , that factor would favor the exercise of the fifth factor asks whether the number of citizens of the forum state in the proposed plaintiff class ( es ) is substantially larger than the number of citizens from any other state , and the citizenship of the other members of the proposed class ( es ) is dispersed among a substantial number of states . 
if all of the class members who do not reside in the state where the action was filed are widely dispersed among many other states , that point would suggest that the interests of the forum state in litigating the controversy are preeminent . 
however , if a court finds that the citizenship of the other class members is not widely dispersed , the opposite balance would be indicated and a federal forum would be favored . 
finally , the sixth factor is whether one or more class actions asserting the same or similar claims on behalf of the same or other persons have been filed in the last three years . 
the purpose of this factor is efficiency and fairness : to determine whether a matter should be subject to federal jurisdiction so that it can be coordinated with other overlapping or parallel class actions . 
if other class actions on new subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 4 ) ( a ) is the `` local controversy exception. '' this subsection prohibits federal courts from exercising diversity jurisdiction over a class action under the foregoing provisions if the plaintiffs clearly demonstrate that each and every one of the following criteria are satisfied in the case at issue . 
first , more than two-thirds of class members are citizens of the forum state . 
second , there is at least one in-state defendant from whom significant relief is sought by members of the class and whose conduct forms a significant basis of plaintiffs ' claims . 
third , the principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct , or related conduct , of each defendant were incurred in the state where the action was originally filed . 
and fourth , no other class action asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants on behalf of the same or other persons has been filed during the preceding three years . 
this provision is intended to respond to concerns that class actions with a truly local focus should not be moved to federal court under this legislation because state courts have a strong interest in adjudicating such disputes . 
at the same time , this is a narrow exception that was carefully drafted to ensure that it does not become a jurisdictional loophole . 
thus , in assessing whether each of these criteria is satisfied by a particular case , a federal court should bear in mind that the purpose of each of these criteria is to identify a truly local controversy -- a controversy that uniquely affects a particular locality to the exclusion of all others . 
for example , under the second criterion , there must be at least one real local defendant . 
by that , the sponsors intend that the local defendant must be a primary focus of the plaintiffs ' claims -- not just a peripheral defendant . 
the local defendant must be a target from whom significant relief is sought by the class ( as opposed to just a subset of the class membership ) , as well as being a defendant whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims asserted by the class . 
similarly , the third criterion is that the principal injuries resulting from the actions of all the defendants must have occurred in the state where the suit was filed . 
by this criterion , the sponsors mean that the fourth and final criterion is that no other class action involving similar allegations has been filed against any of the defendants over the last three years on behalf of the same or other persons . 
once again , the sponsors wish to stress that the inquiry under this criterion should not be whether identical ( or nearly identical ) class actions have been filed . 
rather , the inquiry is whether similar factual allegations have been made against the defendant in multiple class actions , regardless of whether the same causes of actions were asserted or whether the purported plaintiff classes were the same ( or even overlapped in significant respects ) . 
new subsections 1332 ( d ) ( 5 ) ( a ) and ( b ) specify that s. 5 does not extend federal diversity jurisdiction to class actions in which ( a ) the primary defendants are states , state officials , or other governmental entities against whom the district court may be foreclosed from ordering relief , or ( b ) the number of members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate is fewer than 100 class members . 
the purpose of the `` state action '' cases provision is to prevent states , state officials , or other governmental entities from dodging legitimate claims by removing class actions to federal court and then arguing that the federal courts are constitutionally prohibited from granting the requested relief . 
however , federal courts should proceed cautiously before declining federal jurisdiction under the `` state action '' case exception , and do so only when it is clear that the primary defendants are indeed states , state officials , or other governmental entities against whom the `` court may be foreclosed from ordering relief. '' the sponsors wish to stress that this provision should not become a subterfuge for avoiding federal jurisdiction . 
in particular , plaintiffs should not be permitted to name state entities as defendants as a mechanism to avoid federal jurisdiction over class actions that largely target non-governmental defendants . 
the sponsors intend that `` primary defendants '' be interpreted to reach those defendants who are the real `` targets '' of the lawsuit -- i.e. , the defendants that would be expected to incur most of the loss if liability is found . 
it is the sponsors ' intention with regard to each of these exceptions that the party opposing federal jurisdiction shall have the burden of demonstrating the applicability of an exemption . 
the sponsors understand that in assessing the various criteria established in all of these new jurisdictional provisions , a federal court may have to engage in some fact-finding , not unlike what is necessitated by the existing jurisdictional statutes . 
the sponsors further understand that in some instances , limited discovery may be necessary to make these determinations . 
however , the sponsors caution that these jurisdictional determinations should be made largely on the basis of readily available information . 
allowing substantial , burdensome discovery on jurisdictional issues would be contrary to the intent of these provisions to encourage the exercise of federal jurisdiction over class actions . 
under new subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 9 ) , the act excludes from its jurisdictional provisions class actions that solely involve claims that relate to matters of corporate governance arising out of state law . 
the purpose of this provision is to avoid disturbing in any way the federal vs . 
state court jurisdictional lines already drawn in the securities litigation class action context by the enactment of the securities litigation uniform standards act of 1998 . 
the sponsors intend that this exemption be narrowly construed . 
by corporate governance litigation , the sponsors mean only litigation based solely on ( a ) state statutory law regulating the organization and governance of business enterprises such as corporations , partnerships , limited partnerships , limited liability companies , new subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 11 ) expands federal jurisdiction over mass actions -- suits that are brought on behalf of numerous named plaintiffs who claim that their suits present common questions of law or fact that should be tried together even though they do not seek class certification status . 
mass action cases function very much like class actions and are subject to many of the same abuses . 
under subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 11 ) , any civil action in which 100 or more named parties seek to try their claims for monetary relief together will be treated as a class action for jurisdictional purposes . 
the sponsors wish to stress that a complaint in which 100 or more plaintiffs are named fits the criteria of seeking to try their claims together , because there would be no other apparent reason to include all of those claimants in a single action unless the intent was to secure a joint trial of the claims asserted in the action . 
the sponsors also wish to stress that this provision is when all the claims asserted in the action arise out of an event or occurrence in the state where , the suit is filed and the injuries were incurred in that state and contiguous states ( e.g. , a toxic spill case ) and ( 2 ) when the claims are asserted on behalf of the general public ( and not on behalf of individual claimants or members of a purported class ) pursuant to a state statute specifically authorizing such an action . 
the first exception would apply only to a truly local single event with no substantial interstate effects . 
the purpose of this exception is to allow cases involving environmental torts such as a chemical spill to remain in state court if both the event and the injuries were truly local , even though there are some out-of-state defendants . 
by contrast , this exception would not apply to a product liability or insurance case . 
the second exception also addresses a very narrow situation , specifically a law like the california unfair competition law , which allows individuals to bring a suit on behalf of the general public . 
subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 11 ) ( b ) ( i ) includes a statement indicating that jurisdiction exists only over those plaintiffs whose claims in a mass action satisfy the jurisdictional amount requirements under section 1332 ( a ) . 
it is the sponsors ' intent that although remands of individual claims not meeting the section 1332 jurisdictional amount requirement may take the action below the 100-plaintiff jurisdictional threshold or the $ 5 million jurisdictional amount requirement , those subsequent remands should not extinguish federal diversity jurisdiction over the action as long as the mass action met the various jurisdictional requirements at the time of removal . 
under subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 11 ) ( c ) , a mass action removed to a federal court under this provision may not be transferred to another federal court under the mdl statute ( 28 u.s.c . 
1407 ) unless a majority of the plaintiffs request such a transfer . 
the sponsors wish to make clear that this restriction on mdl transfers applies only to mass actions as defined in subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 11 ) ; the legislation does not more broadly restrict the authority of the judicial panel on multidistrict litigation to transfer class actions removed to federal court under this legislation . 
under subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 11 ) ( d ) , the statute of limitations for any claims that are part of a mass action will be tolled while the mass action is pending in federal court . 
the removal provisions in section 5 of the legislation are self-explanatory and attempt to put an end to the type of gaming engaged in by plaintiffs ' lawyers to keep cases in state court . 
they should thus be interpreted with this intent in mind . 
in addition , new subsection 1453 ( c ) provides that an order remanding a class action to state court is reviewable by appeal at the discretion of the reviewing court . 
the sponsors note that the current prohibition on remand order review was added to section 1447 after the federal diversity jurisdictional statutes and the related removal statutes had been subject to appellate review for many years and were the subject of considerable appellate level interpretive law . 
the sponsors believe it is important thank you , madam speaker , for allowing me to provide an explanation of these jurisdictional provisions . 
madam speaker , for purposes of engaging in a colloquy with the two gentlemen from virginia ( mr. goodlatte ) xz4001540 and ( mr. boucher ) xz4000430 , i yield to the gentleman from virginia ( mr. goodlatte ) xz4001540 . 
