mr. speaker , reclaiming my time , i will be happy to explain .  the mass action provision was included in the bill because mass actions are really class actions in disguise .  they involve an element of people who want their claims adjudicated together , and they often result in the same abuses as class actions .  in fact , sometimes the abuses are even worse because the lawyers seek to join claims that have little to do with each other and confuse a jury into awarding millions of dollars to individuals who have suffered no real injury .  here is how the mass action provision and the current amount-in-controversy provision would work in tandem : suppose 200 people file a mass action in mississippi against a new jersey drug manufacturer and also name a local drug store .  three of them assert claims for a million dollars apiece , and the rest assert claims of $ 20 , 000 .  the federal court would have jurisdiction over the mass action because there are more than 100 plaintiffs , there is minimal diversity , and the total amount of controversy exceeds $ 5 million , and a product liability case does not qualify for the local occurrence exception in the provision .  then the question becomes , which claims would , in the mass action , the federal judge keep in federal court , and which would be remanded ?  at this point the judge would have to look at each of the claims very carefully and determine whether or not they meet the $ 75 , 000 minimum .  in this regard , i would note that the plaintiffs often seek to minimize what they are seeking in the complaint so that they can stay in state court .  for example , sometimes plaintiffs leave their claim for punitive damages off the original complaint to make it seem like their claims are smaller than they really are .  it is our expectation that a federal judge would read a complaint very carefully and only remand claims that clearly do not meet the $ 75 , 000 threshold .  if it is likely that a plaintiff is going to turn around in a month and add an additional claim for punitive damages , the federal court should obviously assert jurisdiction over that individual 's claims .  finally , i would like to stress that this provision in no way is intended to abrogate 8 united states code 3867 to narrow current jurisdictional rules .  thus , if a federal court believed it to be appropriate , the court could apply supplemental jurisdiction in the mass action context as well .  with regard to the exceptions , it is our intent that they be interpreted strictly by a court so that they do not become loopholes for an important jurisdictional provision .  thus , the first exception would apply only in a situation where we are talking about 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 sale of a product to different people does not qualify as an event , and the alleged injuries in such a case would be spread out over more than one state or contiguous states even if all of the plaintiffs in a particular case came from one single state .  the third exception 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 .  such a suit would not qualify as a mass action .  however , the vast majority of cases brought under other states ' consumer fraud laws which do not have a parallel provision could qualify as removable class actions .  