[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 152 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H11337-H11339]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                CHILDREN'S GASOLINE BURN PREVENTION ACT

  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 814) to require the Consumer Product Safety Commission to 
issue regulations mandating child-resistant closures on all portable 
gasoline containers, as amended.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                H.R. 814

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Children's Gasoline Burn 
     Prevention Act''.

     SEC. 2. CHILD-RESISTANT PORTABLE GASOLINE CONTAINERS.

       (a) Consumer Product Safety Rule.--The provision of 
     subsection (b) shall be considered to be a consumer product 
     safety rule issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 
     2058).
       (b) Requirements.--Effective 6 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, each portable gasoline container 
     manufactured on or after that date for sale in the United 
     States shall conform to the child-resistance requirements for 
     closures on portable gasoline containers specified in the 
     standard ASTM F2517-05, issued by ASTM International.
       (c) Definition.--As used in this Act, the term ``portable 
     gasoline container'' means any portable gasoline container 
     intended for use by consumers.
       (d) Revision of Rule.--If, after the enactment of this Act, 
     ASTM International proposes to revise the child resistance 
     requirements of ASTM F2517-05, ASTM International shall 
     notify the Consumer Product Safety Commission of the proposed 
     revision and the proposed revision shall be incorporated in 
     the consumer product safety rule under subsection (a) unless, 
     within 60 days of such notice, the Commission notifies ASTM 
     International that the Commission has determined that such 
     revision does not carry out the purposes of subsection (b).
       (e) Implementing Regulations.--Section 553 of title 5, 
     United States Code, shall apply with respect to the issuance 
     of any regulations by the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     to implement the requirements of this section, and sections 7 
     and 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act shall not apply to 
     such issuance.
       (f) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Consumer Product Safety Commission 
     shall transmit to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate a report on--
       (1) the degree of industry compliance with the standard 
     promulgated under subsection (a);
       (2) any enforcement actions brought by the Commission to 
     enforce such standard; and
       (3) incidents involving children interacting with portable 
     gasoline containers (including both those that are and are 
     not in compliance with the standard promulgated under 
     subsection (a)).

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) each 
will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois.


                             General Leave

  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to 
include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Illinois?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this is the first of four consumer protection bills on 
floor of the House of Representatives that the Subcommittee on 
Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection reported on July 30, and the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce subsequently reported on September 27.
  The final versions of these bills have all been crafted in a 
thoroughly bipartisan manner and in close consultation with the 
Consumer Product Safety Commission. The committee staff, both majority 
and minority, should be commended for the hard work they put into these 
bills to ensure that they are thoughtful, careful, and bipartisan 
pieces of legislation.
  H.R. 814, the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act, was introduced 
by Congressman Dennis Moore and Congressman Spencer Bachus.

                              {time}  1545

  It requires child-resistant caps on gasoline cans, whether they are 
sold with or without gasoline. Currently, the law only requires such 
safety caps on cans sold with gasoline in the can. The absence of a 
requirement for child-resistant caps on empty gasoline cans makes no 
sense, and this bill addresses this dangerous inconsistency.
  At subcommittee, we passed an amendment in the nature of a substitute 
which reflected arcane and

[[Page H11338]]

technical changes to the bill as recommended by the staff of the CPSC. 
As a consequence, the bill, as amended, employs the regulatory model 
used for automatic garage door openers to formulate safety 
requirements, which has proven to be a very successful regulatory model 
over the years for the CPSC.
  This is a good bill, Madam Speaker, and I want to commend our 
colleagues, Mr. Moore and Mr. Bachus, for their bipartisan work. I urge 
a ``yes'' vote.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, it's a great opportunity to see you in 
the Speaker's chair today.
  I would like to commend, obviously, Congressman Moore for his 
dedication and his determination to move H.R. 814, the Gasoline Burn 
Prevention Act. He has been, Madam Speaker, and as my colleague knows, 
the chairman of the committee has been tireless in his efforts to 
ensure portable gasoline containers are fitted with child-resistant 
caps, and that is simply what this legislation does. This bill mandates 
that all portable gas cans sold in this country be equipped with child-
resistant caps.
  I'd like to note, however, that mandating the standard is not a 
substitute for preventing access to gasoline. In fact, all prepackaged 
gas containers are required to be sold with child-resistant caps. And 
empty gas containers, which this legislation addresses, are now sold 
with such caps as a matter of compliance with a voluntary industry 
standard. Let me repeat. The industry has complied with this on a 
volunteer basis. The very standard that this bill adopts, industry has 
voluntarily complied with and set up themselves or in compliance with 
State environmental laws requiring child-resistant and spill-resistant 
caps.
  As a consequence, I'm just a bit concerned about this legislation. 
Not, obviously, because of its substance, but simply because of the 
precedents that we have here, Congress, how we will treat industry who 
voluntarily step out, set their standards, comply with it and do it 
themselves. So when the industry is in compliance and did so 
voluntarily, why does the United States Federal Government need to get 
involved? Requirements of the Consumer Product Safety Act establish the 
CPSC should only promulgate a standard when no industry or other 
standard exists, or when an existing standard is inadequate or is not 
being complied with at large. But, again, industry in compliance; did 
so voluntarily. So why does the United States Government have to step 
in?
  I'm concerned that we'll send a message to industry that even when 
you do things correctly, you adopt the standards voluntarily, and you 
comply with them, Congress will not hesitate to intercede, turning an 
industry standard into a commission rule while bypassing the 
requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.
  Now, think about that. They adopt the standards, they comply with it, 
they do it themselves; Congress still intervenes and adopts what the 
industry put as a standard as part of a bill here. If turning industry 
standards into agency rules becomes regular practice around here, it 
could severely diminish the willingness of industry to develop 
standards on their own because, be careful what you ask for. The 
industry will say to themselves, lo and behold, we work hard, we 
developed this voluntarily, this standard, bingo. They come back and 
they might take the standard, and not only take the standard, but the 
standard plus one, plus two, plus three.
  So I worry that these additional layers of regulation liability, and 
of course there's liability when the Federal Government steps in, on 
the manufacturing industry, particularly when the industry complies, 
simply complies with the industry standards, are unnecessary in many 
cases, and often contribute to the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs 
because of the concern about liability.
  Now, having said all that, Madam Speaker, expressing my concerns of 
the unintended precedent, I obviously support this bill because the 
bill, in effect, is a reasonable effort that may, perhaps will, reduce 
danger to children. And so for that, Madam Speaker, I commend 
Congressman Moore. I just think it establishes a precedent that we, on 
this committee, Commerce, Consumer Protection and Trade, have to be 
careful about.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. RUSH. Madam Speaker, I want to assure everybody that, in spite of 
the polemics, this is a bipartisan bill, and we do have bipartisan 
agreement.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 
814, the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act.
  While they say that good things come to those who wait, victims of a 
gasoline burn due to non-child-resistant gasoline container closures 
and their families would disagree. This is the fourth Congress in which 
I have introduced this measure. For the past two, I have been joined by 
my friend and colleague from Alabama, Representative Spencer Bachus. 
Our children have waited long enough for this common sense consumer 
protection.
  The 1973 Poison Packaging Prevention Act requires items containing 
dangerous or poisonous materials, such as pill bottles, to be sold with 
child-resistant caps. Gasoline cans, however, are exempt from this 
requirement because they are sold empty, even though they are designed 
solely to contain one very hazardous, highly flammable liquid. H.R. 814 
would simply amend section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 
U.S.C. 2058), to include child-resistance standards for closures on all 
portable gasoline containers.
  Allowing these cans to be sold with simple twist-off caps is 
dangerous and causes tragic accidents when children come into contact 
with them. Unfortunately, these accidents occur all too frequently. In 
2003, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, CPSC, released a report 
estimating that in a single year; more than 1,200 children under the 
age of five were treated in emergency rooms for injuries resulting from 
unsecured gas cans, either through fires or inhalation of fumes. Using 
a different data set, the CPSC confirmed 19 deaths over eleven years 
due to children interacting with gas cans.
  H.R. 814 has been endorsed by the American Society of Testing and 
Materials' Task Group of Standards for Flammable Liquid Containers, the 
World Burn Foundation, the National Safety Council, the American 
Academy of Pediatrics, the National Fire Protection Association, Public 
Citizen, and the Office of the Kansas State Fire Marshal.
  I In addition, H.R. 814 would not cost the taxpayers any money and is 
strongly bipartisan.
  During the 109th Congress, the Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention 
Act garnered 119 cosponsors, 14 of whom were Republicans. This 
Congress, it is again a strongly bipartisan bill.
  Thank you again, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to vote on this 
proposal in the full House. I hope that we can work together to enact 
this simple, common-sense measure that will protect young children, and 
help put their parents' minds at ease with regard to gasoline cans 
stored in garages, basements, and back porches. The Consumer Product 
Safety Commission must be allowed to adequately protect consumers and 
ensure public safety. This measure will help do that.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to support H.R. 814, a 
commonsense bill that will protect children from severe harm.
  The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act will resolve a long-
standing loophole in Federal law. For more than 30 years, we have 
required that household hazardous materials be sold in child resistant 
containers. Gasoline cans were exempt from this requirement for one 
simple reason. They are sold empty. They do not hold any hazardous 
material when they are purchased.
  This is a meaningless distinction--the sole purpose of these cans is 
to hold gasoline, a highly flammable and dangerous material. This bill 
will require that companies sell cans that children can't open.
  I worked with my colleague Dennis Moore to introduce a similar bill 
last Congress, after I learned about young children who were killed or 
permanently injured in fires that began when the children accidentally 
opened a gas can. Stephen Diaz, a California boy, is just one example. 
He opened a gas can in his family garage and knocked it over. The fumes 
ignited, and he was burned over half of his body. This fire, and many 
others, could and should have been prevented.
  I am pleased that the bill has been reintroduced this Congress and is 
on the floor today. The Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act is a 
simple but important piece of legislation that I urge my colleagues to 
support.
  Mr. RUSH. I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Berkley). The question is on the motion 
offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush) that the House 
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 814, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the

[[Page H11339]]

rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________