PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 8, 2001
Workplace Goods Job Growth and Competitiveness Act of 2001 - 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 18 years after it was delivered to its first purchaser or lessee for: (1) damage to property arising out of an accident involving such good; or (2) damages for death or personal injury arising out of an accident involving such 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, all 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 which was longer than 18 years (except that this Act shall apply at the expiration of such warranty); and (2) 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.
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.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Feb 10, 2026. 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.940 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.940 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.940 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.940 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.