PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1164-1165)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Feb 26, 2015
Detergent Poisoning And Child Safety Act of 2015 or the Detergent PACS Act of 2015
Requires the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to establish safety standards for liquid detergent packets to protect children who are younger than five years of age from injury or illness.
Directs the CPSC to establish such standards by promulgating a rule or adopting voluntary ASTM International standards.
Provides for any final rule that is promulgated to include: (1) requirements for special packaging and warning labels, (2) standards to make the color and design of packets less attractive to children, and (3) liquid composition standards to make the consequences of exposure less severe.
Requires the rule or standards to be treated as consumer product safety standards under the Consumer Product Safety Act.
People & committees
Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL] · D–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S1164-1165)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 S.588 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 S.588 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 S.588 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 S.588 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.