The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will state the amendment.

The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

AUTOMOBILE SAFETY STANDARDS

SEC. 123. Section 103(a) of the National Tramc and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 is amended by inserting "(1)" after "SEC. 103. (a)" and by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"(2)(A) Effective with respect to motor

vehicles manufactured after the date of en

actment of this paragraph, Federal motor vehicle safety standards may not (except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (B)) require that any such vehicle be equipped (1)

with a safety belt interlock system, (11) with any warning device other than a warning light designed to indicate that safety belts

should be fastened, or (111) with any occupant restraint system other than integrated lap and shoulder safety belts for front outboard occupants and lapbelts for other occupants.

"(B) Effective with respect to motor vehicles manufactured after the date of enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary shall not promulgate any Federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring any occupant restraint system, or warning system in connection therewith, except as authorized in subparagraph (A), until after public hear ings with respect thereto and approval of the proposed standard by resolution of the Committee on Commerce of the United States Senate and the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the United States House of Representatives.

"(C) Notwithstanding any provision of Federal law to the contrary, any safety belt interlock system or audible warning device in connection with safety belts may be rendered inoperative to the extent such system or device was required by a Federal motor vehicle safety standard promulgated prior to enactment of this paragraph.".

Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Frank Maguire and Mr. Leonard Safr of my staff be extended the privilege of the floor during debate on this matter.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

mittee who may be on the floor the bulk of my time to discuss it.

Therefore, there is no Public Works position on the amendment, and I do not speak for the committee in this instance. My personal view is that the Senator's amendment is a reasonable one. It retains the warning light which will signal when a seatbelt is not on. It does not preclude the air bag, but suggests congressional review of regulations affecting it. It makes optional the interlock and buzzer system now required on present automobiles.

The House has overwhelmingly supported a measure more stringent than this one, and the administration has indicated that it is rethinking the interlock question.

As I indicated, I will support the amendment, which puts the Senate on record on this issue, but I will yield to any member of the Committee on Commerce who wishes to speak in opposition to it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.

Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from Texas has stated, the purpose of this amendment is to eliminate the mandatory ignition interlock and buzzer system, while leaving a warning light on the dashboard to indicate that safety belts should be fastened. Concerning the issue of air bags, the language of the amendment is such that prior to air bags being mandated by the Department of Transportation, it would be necessary for the Senate and House Commerce Committee to hold public hearings; and lastly the mandating of such safety standards would then be subject to approval by both committees.

Mr. President, I feel very strongly that as a rule, it is not in the public interest to place the Congress in a position of legislating specific automobile safety standards. In this particular instance, however, I feel that the public has clearly

Mr. BUCKLEY. Certainly, I yield. Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. President, I have reviewed the amendment proposed by Senators BUCKLEY and Eagleton.

I should make clear at the outset that this is not a matter before the Committee on Public Works. The subject matter of the amendment is within the province of the Committee on Commerce, and I want to give the members of that com

date of an interlock and buzzer revoked.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the names of the following cosponsors to this amendment: Mr. DOMINICK, Mr. HELMS, Mr. ABOUREZK, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. GURNEY, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. HRUSKA, and Mr. THURMOND.

Mr. EAGLETON. Will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. BUCKLEY. I gladly yield.

Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I ask

Safety research also found that even though belt use in ignition interlock equipped 1974 models increased significantly over usage in 1973 and earlier cars, roughly 47 percent of the drivers of ignition interlock equipped cars still did not use the available safety belts.

When one weighs the results of these studies along with the overwhelming and recently well publicized consumer criticism of the interlock and buzzer, it is clear that the Congress should act now to revoke the mandate of an interlock and buzzer system.

Mr. President, I should now like to address the rather controversial issue of airbags. I realize that many of my colleagues may wonder why we should be discussing the airbag question in the midst of an exercise that was originally undertaken for the stated purpose of ridding the consumer of the nuisance interlock and buzzer gadgetry. To provide an answer to that question, one must first indulge in Washington's favorite pastime--second guessing. If, through adoption of this amendment, the Congress eliminates the mandatory ignition interlock and buzzer systems, we will create pressures for the early adoption by the 30838 Department of Transportation of mandatory airbags to satisfy their occupant restraint standards. Members of the Congress have already attempted to secondguess DOT by legislating standards in anticipation of the Department's mandating of airbags, as witness the House action last month. I am of the opinion, however that crash protection systems such as the airbag should be proven and must be accepted by the American consumer prior to forced installation whether by DOT or Congress.

I feel that the requirement of full public hearing and congressional review as is provided for by the language of our amendment will provide assurance that airbag advocates will not force their installation-at great cost to the consum.er-until their effectiveness and desirability are fully and openly demonstrated.

I am far from satisfied that the case for the airbag has yet been proven. By the same token, I would not preclude further research and development.

Installation of air bags will cost the consumer anywhere from $200 to $300. Yet, there is still no evidence to show that air bags approach the known lifesaving capabilities of properly worn beltharness systems.

I, therefore, do not want to see Congress placed in the position of forcing upon the consumer an air bag whose estimated cost runs from $200 to $300

per vehicle as a substitute for interlock and buzzer systems that cost between $50 and $100 per vehicle. Thus, I feel that there is a very real need to assure the holding of public hearings before air bags are mandated by regulatory flat.

In short, I do not feel that the consumer should be left holding the bag.

Congress should not place itself in the position of writing safety standards with respect to air bags. I feel that it would be premature for Congress to go on record for or against air bags given the fact that four major U.S. manufacturers have already stated that at least 3 additional years will be needed to meet the specification's for passive restraints. I feel that the state of the arts with respect to air bags is such that it would be impractical, unreasonable, and inappropriate for Congress to assert itself at this time by legislating standards. Such technical problems as now exist with the air bag system should more appropriately be explored jointly by both DOT and the auto manufacturer.

Given that experts claim that the air bag system is expected to cost the consumer between $3 to $5 billion, and considering the fact that research and development are not far enough advanced realistically for DOT to mandate their installation in all size vehicles, I feel that in this instance final congressional review and approval of such regulations prior to enactment is not only warranted but extremely desirable.

I believe, Mr. President, that there is no single bureaucratic excess in recent years that has so aggravated the American people, and I believe that there is no reasonable and proper way for Congress to extend a proper concern for the safety of third parties to such an overweening concern for the safety of an adult entitled to drive a motor vehicle, as to force that adult to install the safety interlock as a condition to using his automobile.

I would also like to move onto another aspect of this legislation, namely, that of the air bag.

The air bag is still a controversial matter. It is still far from proven as to its effectiveness and as to whether it is a more desirable alternative than seatbelts, and I believe that under the circumstances, and also because if we succeed in the adoption of this amendment it would create pressure on the Department of Transportation to move quickly to the air bag. I believe for the same reasons already cited that we should provide a mechanism that will make sure that we do not precipitately move to an air bag system that would cost $300 or

so automobiles which are produced each year and you are soon talking about decisions involving billions of dollars.

Mr. President, the 1975 model cars are already on the street. A million of them have entered the production line since our bill was introduced. As the days go by, the manufacturers continue to produce the interlock systems for installation on new cars. I am told that interlocks could be disabled on the production line within 10 days of a decision to do so. Cars already produced could have the systems disconnected by dealers which cannot now be done. While these cars would continue to carry the useless electronics until the engineering changes are made down the line, at some point they would no longer be installed at all. The savings, which are substantial, could then be passed on to the car buyer. This would

undoubtedly take time, since manufacturers have long-term contracts with their suppliers. So we must act quickly if we are to save consumer money as well as further aggravation.

The third issue is effectiveness. The very few letters I have received in opposition to my bill start with the assumption that buzzers and interlocks will lead to near-universal seatbelt usage, thus reducing auto accident deaths and injuries.

The fact is that considerable question has been raised about the effectiveness of these systems by several recent studies. In research conducted for the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Drs. Leon S. Robertson and William Haddon, Jr., found that seatbelt use had increased significantly in cars equipped with an interlock device. Fully 41 percent of the drivers, however, were not wearing seatbelts at the time of observation. Another 11 percent were wearing lap belts only. Apparently, more than half of the drivers had found ways to disconnect or circumvent the system, leaving themselves unprotected or only partially protected in the event of an accident. It bears noting also that the interlock system was mandatory equipment was less than a year old when the study was performed. If half of the owners of such cars had already found a way around the system, one has cause to wonder what the studies will show a year hence.

On automobiles equipped with seatbelt buzzers and lights only, 18 percent of the drivers observed were found to be wearing seatbelts. That compares with 16 percent of the drivers operating vehicles without a buzzer system-a difference which the researchers found was not statistically significant. Thus, according to the authors:

The buzzer-light system can only be described as a public health failure. It is unlikely that it will contribute to a reduction in overall frequency or severity of injuries associated with motor vehicle crashes, which was its purpose under the statute providing for motor vehicle standards.

Mr. President, I think these results are highly significant. Again, I would refer to my remarks of August 13, where the conclusions from these two institute studies are reprinted.

The Department of Transportation has estimated seatbelt usage at roughly the same rates as the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. They estimate that belt usage would stabilize at about 50 percent for lap and shoulder belts together.

In a report to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration of DOT, Opinion Research Corp. concluded that usage of belts in cars with interlock systems was statistically no more significant than usage in cars equipped with either sequential or simple buzzer and light warning devices. This study was conducted on rental cars in Canada last spring.

Experience to date with these various warning systems has been discouraging.

Mr. President, I would now like to discuss how our amendment will seek to remedy the problems already created and to avoid those which might occur in the future.

This amendment would do the following:

Eliminate the existing requirement for ignition interlock and buzzer systems;

Permit manufacturers, dealers, and others to disconnect such systems on cars which already have them;

Continue the existing requirement for safety belts alone in passenger vehicles; and

Require the Department of Transportation to submit any future regulations dealing with occupant restraint systems to public hearings before implementation.

This amendment is not intended to supersede either the judicial review procedure of the Safety Act nor is it intened in any way to dilute the rights of interested parties seeking judicial review of the Secretary's actions taken pursuant to section 103 on the criteria that such actions must be reasonable, practicable, and stated in objective terms. It is the intent of our amendment that the Congress and the public merely oversee the Secretary's actions and that the criteria for judicial review of the actions of DOT remain in full force.

The issue of what constitutes the ideal restraint system is far from settled. Dur