PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 297.
Congressional Research Service
Version 79 · Reported to House without amendment · Jan 11, 2016
(This measure has not been amended since it was introduced. The summary has been expanded because action occurred on the measure.)
Child Nicotine Poisoning Prevention Act of 2015
(Sec. 2) This bill requires any nicotine provided in a liquid nicotine container sold, offered for sale, manufactured for sale, distributed in commerce, or imported into the United States to be packaged in accordance with the Consumer Product Safety Commission's (CPSC's) standards and testing procedures for special packaging that is difficult for children under five years of age to open or to obtain harmful contents from. The requirement must be treated as a standard for the special packaging of a household substance under the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
"Liquid nicotine container" is defined to: (1) include a package from which nicotine in a solution or other form is accessible through normal and foreseeable use by a consumer and that is used to hold soluble nicotine in any concentration; and (2) exclude a sealed, pre-filled, and disposable container of nicotine in a solution or other form in which such container is inserted directly into an electronic cigarette, electronic nicotine delivery system, or other similar product, if the nicotine in the container is inaccessible through customary or reasonably foreseeable handling or use, including reasonably foreseeable ingestion or other contact by children.
The bill applies to any form of chemical nicotine, including any salt or complex, regardless of whether the chemical is naturally or synthetically derived.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must consult with the CPSC if HHS maintains, enforces, imposes, or continues in effect any packaging requirement for liquid nicotine containers, including a child-resistant packaging requirement.
People & committees
Rep. Brooks, Susan W. [R-IN-5] · R–IN
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. 297.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-394.
Reported by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 114-394.
Ordered to be Reported by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
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.3242 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.3242 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.3242 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.3242 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.