[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 149 (Thursday, October 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11463-S11464]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself and Mr. Jeffords):
  S. 1350. A bill to amend section 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934 to preserve State and local authority to regulate the placement, 
construction, and modification of certain telecommunications 
facilities, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation.


             THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES ACT OF 1997

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my 
bill to preserve State and local authority to regulate the placement, 
construction, and modification of telecommunication facilities be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 1350

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress make the following findings:
       (1) The placement of commercial telecommunications, radio, 
     or television towers near homes can greatly reduce the value 
     of such homes, destroy the views from such homes, and reduce 
     substantially the desire to live in such homes.
       (2) States and localities should be able to exercise 
     control over the construction and location of such towers 
     through the use of zoning, planned growth, and other controls 
     relating to the protection of the environment and public 
     safety.
       (3) There are alternatives to the construction of 
     additional telecommunications towers to meet 
     telecommunications needs, including the co-location of 
     antennae on existing towers and the use of alternative 
     technologies.
       (4) On August 19, 1997, the Federal Communications 
     Commission issued a proposed rule, MM Docket No. 97-182, 
     which would preempt the application of State and local zoning 
     and land use ordinances regarding the placement of 
     telecommunications towers. It is in the interest of the 
     Nation that the Commission not adopt this rule.
       (5) It is in the interest of the Nation that the second 
     memorandum opinion and order and notice of proposed rule 
     making of the Commission with respect to application of such 
     ordinances to the placement of such towers, WT Docket No. 97-
     192, ET Docket No. 93-62, and RM-8577, be modified in order 
     to permit State and local governments to exercise their 
     zoning and land use authorities, and their power to protect 
     public health and safety, to regulate the placement of 
     telecommunications towers and to place the burden of proof in 
     civil actions relating to the placement of such towers on the 
     person or entity that seeks to place, construct, or modify 
     such towers.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To repeal the limitations on the exercise of State and 
     local authorities regarding the placement, construction, and 
     modification of personal wireless service facilities that 
     arise under section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)).
       (2) To permit State and local governments to regulate the 
     placement, construction, and modification of such facilities 
     on the basis of the environmental effects of the operation of 
     such facilities.
       (3) To prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from 
     adopting rules which would preempt State and local regulation 
     of the placement of such facilities.

     SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF CERTAIN 
                   TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.

       (a) Repeal of Limitations.--Section 332(c)(7)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in clause (i), by striking ``thereof--'' and all that 
     follows through the end and inserting ``thereof shall not 
     unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally 
     equivalent services.'';
       (2) by striking clause (iv);
       (3) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv); and
       (4) in clause (iv), as so redesignated, by striking the 
     third sentence and inserting the following: ``In any such 
     action in which a person seeking to place, construct, or 
     modify a tower facility is a party, such person shall bear 
     the burden of proof.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Adoption of Rule.--Notwithstanding any 
     other provision of law, the Federal Communications Commission 
     may not adopt as a final rule the proposed rule set forth in 
     ``Preemption of State and Local Zoning and Land Use 
     Restrictions on Siting, Placement and Construction of 
     Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities'', MM Docket No. 
     97-182, released August 19, 1997.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to continue a discussion 
that my colleague, Senator Leahy, began earlier, with regard to the 
Federal Communications Commission proposed rulemaking on regulations 
for wireless and digital broadcast facilities.
  University of Vermont instructor and landscape designer Jean 
Veissering recently stated ``We have a real spiritual connection with 
hilltops. They tend to be almost sacred ground. Building something 
jarringly out of character upon them seems almost like a sacrilege.'' 
Mr. President, I share Jean's sentiments completely. In addition, it is 
the beautiful views of the majestic mountain ranges that in many ways 
defines what Vermont is all about.
  Vermonters take great pride in their heritage as a State committed to 
the ideals of freedom and unity. That heritage goes hand and hand with 
a unique quality of life and the desire to grow and develop while 
maintaining Vermont's beauty and character. Ethan Allan and his Green 
Mountain Boys and countless other independent minded Vermonters helped 
shape the Nation's 14th State while making outstanding contributions to 
the independence of this country. Today, that independence still 
persists in the hills and valleys of Vermont. Vermonters have worked 
hard over the years to maintain local control over issues that impact 
them directly.
  Throughout my years in Congress, I fought hard to protect the ability 
of Vermonters to step out of their kitchen doors and see an 
unobstructed view. Thousands of Americans travel to Vermont each year 
to take in the splendid nature of the State.
  However, Vermont could have looked quite different if it were not for 
some foresight on behalf of several Vermonters. In the 1960's, the 
State of Vermont was entering into a period of unchecked development. 
In response, Governor Dean C. Davis created the Commission on 
Environmental Control in May of 1969. The commission drafted a set of 
recommendations to help manage the precious resources of the State.
  As the attorney general for the State at that time, I was one of the 
primary drafters of an environmental land use law which would later 
become known as Act 250. Act 250 was specifically written to control 
development, not to stop development, and in turn, this act has led 
Vermont to economic prosperity through balanced environmental 
protection.
  After reviewing the Commission on Environmental Control's 
recommendation and the proposed legislation, Governor Davis made one 
very basic, but important change in the legislation. The proposed 
legislation had called for a State agency to administer the act. The 
Governor was adamant in his belief that the control should be as close 
to the people as possible. It is that control which the FCC's proposed 
rulemaking is looking to preempt.
  Governor Davis' recommendation led to placing the permitting process 
in the hands of local environmental review boards with appeal rights to 
the Vermont Environmental Board. Thus, the act is administered by men 
and women who are directly involved in their communities and thoroughly 
familiar with local concerns.
  When reviewing an application for new development, the local 
environmental review boards take into account the economic needs of the 
State along with regional concerns. The review board's underlying goal 
is to direct the impact of development toward the positive. The 
positive approach has led to a high priority on preserving the 
environment, protecting the natural resources, and maintaining the 
quality of life of all Vermonters.
  On October 9, 1997, the State of Vermont Environmental Board filed 
comments with the Federal Communications Commission that stated: ``Far 
from being an impediment to personal wireless service deployment, 
Vermont's Act 250 demonstrates that the

[[Page S11464]]

path to economic prosperity is through balanced environmental 
protection, not preemption of such protection.'' I share the board's 
sentiments and feel that the FCC should take no further steps to 
preempt Vermont's Act 250 with respect to personal wireless service 
facilities.
  Mr. President, the Green Mountain State has unique topography, 
dominated by rolling valleys and tall mountains. In turn, the citizens 
of the State have taken many steps to help preserve the beautiful views 
and pristine environment. The determination of the location of visible 
transmission towers should remain within the jurisdiction of local 
control. I feel that the Telecommunication Act of 1996 recognizes and 
protects the interest of local and State government in the area of land 
use regulation.
  As the attorney general of the State of Vermont at the time of the 
enactment of Act 250, I am proud of the role I and many other 
Vermonters played in the subsequent management of the precious natural 
resources of the State. I support Act 250 and feel that the placement 
of communications towers should be left in the hands of the residents 
of Vermont not by a Federal agency.
  I have written to the Chairman of the FCC with regard to my concerns 
about this proposed rulemaking. In addition, yesterday the Senate 
confirmed William Kennard to be the next Chairman of the FCC. Upon his 
confirmation, I wrote a letter to Chairman Kennard personally inviting 
him to the State of Vermont to see first hand how this proposed 
rulemaking would impact the State. I hope that he will join me on a 
tour of the State which will demonstrate to him the importance of local 
control with respect to the placement of broadcast facilities. Further, 
I look forward to explaining how Act 250 has allowed for the 
development of wireless communication in the State while protecting the 
environment.
  Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to commend Mr. Leahy for 
introducing this very important legislation for the State of Vermont. I 
am pleased to be a cosponsor and I look forward to working with him to 
protect Vermont's interests unique landscape.
                                 ______