Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Madam Speaker, I want to assure everybody that, in spite of the polemics, this is a bipartisan bill, and we do have bipartisan agreement.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 814, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.