i thank the chairman for yielding once again .  madam speaker , in this regard i think it is important to note that the exceptions in this legislation are just that , exceptions , and they should not be interpreted in ways that turn them into loopholes .  for example , the legislation excludes actions against states .  obviously , this does not mean that plaintiffs can simply name a state in every consumer class action and stay out of federal court .  to the contrary , federal courts should proceed cautiously before declining federal jurisdiction under the subsection 1332 ( d ) ( 5 ) ( a ) `` 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 intend that primary defendants be intended to reach those defendants who are the real targets of the lawsuit , i.e .  the defendants who would be expected to incur most of the loss if liability is found .  thus , the term `` primary defendant '' should include any person who has substantial exposure to significant portions of the proposed class in the action , particularly any defendant that is allegedly liable to the vast majority of the members of the proposed classes , as opposed to simply a few individual class members .  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 .  thus , if a plaintiff seeks to have a class action remanded on the ground that the primary defendants and two-thirds or more of the class members are citizens of the home state , that plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that these criteria are met .  similarly , if a plaintiff seeks to have a purported class action remanded because a primary defendant is a state , that plaintiff should have the burden of demonstrating that the exception should apply .  