madam speaker , reclaiming my time , under new subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 6 ) , the claims of the individual class members in any class action shall be aggregated to determine whether the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $ 5 million . 
the sponsors intend this subsection to be interpreted broadly , and if a purported class action is removed under this provision , the plaintiff shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the $ 5 million threshold is not satisfied . 
by the same token , if a federal court is uncertain about whether a case puts $ 5 million or more in controversy , the court should favor exercising jurisdiction over the case . 
this principle applies to class actions seeking injunctive relief as well . 
the sponsors intend that a matter be subject to federal jurisdiction under this provision if the value of the matter in litigation exceeds the $ 5 million , either from the viewpoint of the plaintiff or the viewpoint of the defendant , regardless of the type of relief sought , such as damages , injunctive relief or declaratory relief . 
the sponsors are aware that some courts , especially in the class action context , have declined to exercise federal jurisdiction over cases on the grounds that the amount in controversy in those cases exceeded the jurisdictional threshold only when assessed from the viewpoint of the defendant . 
for example , a class action seeking injunctive relief that would require a defendant to restructure its business in some fundamental way might cost a defendant well in excess of $ 75 , 000 under current law , but might have substantially less value to each plaintiff or even to the class of plaintiffs as a whole . 
because s. 5 explicitly allows aggregation for the purposes of determining the amount of controversy in class actions , that concern is no longer relevant . 
to the extent plaintiffs seek to avoid this rule by framing their cases as individual actions for injunctive relief , most federal courts have properly held that in an individual case the cost of injunctive relief is viewed from the defendant 's perspective . 
this legislation extends that principle to class actions as well . 
the same approach would apply in a case involving declaratory relief . 
in determining how much money a declaratory relief case puts in controversy , the federal court should include in its assessment the value of all relief and benefits that would logically flow from the granting of the declaratory relief sought by the plaintiffs . 
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 of $ 5 million ; or a declaration that a standardized product sold throughout the nation is defective might well put a case over the $ 5 million threshold , even if the class complaint did not affirmatively seek a determination that each class member was injured by the product . 
the bottom line is that new section 1332 ( d ) is intended to substantially expand federal court jurisdiction over class actions , not to create loopholes . 
this provision should be read broadly , with a strong preference that interstate class actions should be heard in a federal court if properly removed by a defendant . 
