PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 431.
Congressional Research Service
Version 18 · Reported to House amended, Part I · Dec 8, 2006
Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 2006 - Prohibits the filing of a civil action against a manufacturer or seller of a durable good (except a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or train that is used primarily to transport passengers for hire) more than 12 years after it was delivered to its first purchaser or lessee for: (1) damage to property allegedly caused by that good; or (2) damages for death or personal injury allegedly caused by that good if the claimant has received or is eligible to receive worker compensation and the injury does not involve a toxic harm (including, but not limited to, any asbestos-related harm).
Declares that this Act: (1) shall not bar an action against a defendant who made an express warranty in writing as to the safety or life expectancy of a specific product for a period of more than 12 years (except that this Act shall apply at the expiration of such warranty); (2) does not affect the limitations period established by the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994; (3) does not supersede or modify any statute or common law that authorizes an action for civil damages, cost recovery, or any other form of relief for remediation of the environment; (4) does not affect regulatory enforcement actions brought by state or federal agencies; and (5) does not bar a civil action against a manufacturer or seller of a durable good who fraudulently concealed a defect in it.
People & committees
Rep. Chabot, Steve [R-OH-1] · R–OH
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 431.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Committee on Energy and Commerce discharged.
Referred sequentially to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for a period ending not later than Dec. 8, 2006 for consideration of such provisions of the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause 1(f), rule X.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 109-728, Part I.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on 109-728, Part I.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 12.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law Discharged.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3509 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3509 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3509 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3509 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.