PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 49 · Public Law · Jul 17, 2008
(This measure has not been amended since it was passed by the House on October 9, 2007. The summary of that version is repeated here.)
Children's Gasoline Burn Prevention Act - Requires each portable gasoline container manufactured for sale in the United States and intended for use by consumers to conform to a specified child-resistance standard issued by ASTM International. Considers that requirement to be a consumer product safety rule issued by the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) under the Consumer Product Safety Act.
Requires the CPSC to report to specified congressional committees on the degree of industry compliance, related enforcement actions, and incidents involving children interacting with portable gasoline containers (including both those that are and are not in compliance with the standard).
People & committees
Rep. Moore, Dennis [D-KS-3] · D–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Became Public Law No: 110-278.
Became Public Law No: 110-278.
Signed by President.
Signed by President.
Presented to President.
Presented to President.
Message on Senate action sent to the House.
Cleared for White House.
Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Passed/agreed to in Senate: Passed Senate without amendment by Unanimous Consent.
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent. (consideration: CR S5665)
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation discharged by Unanimous Consent.(consideration: CR S5665)
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H11337)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR H11337)
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 814.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H11337-11339)
Mr. Rush moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 228.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-367.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 110-367.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
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.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 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.814 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.814 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.814 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.814 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.