[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10380-S10383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. Jeffords, and Mrs. Murray):
  S. 3103. A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify 
and reaffirm State and local authority to regulate the placement, 
construction, and modification of wireless services facilities, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer two pieces of 
legislation that would close a loophole that allows Federal regulators 
to overrule local officials on the building of cellular and broadcast 
towers. I am proud to be joined by Senator Jeffords, and Senator Murray 
in introducing legislation that will return decision-making power on 
the siting of towers to local communities.
  The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which I opposed, contained a 
provision that allowed the Federal Communications Commission to preempt 
the decisions of local authorities. Over the last five years, a small 
loophole in the 1996 Act has spurred David versus Goliath battles 
across the country. Small communities that pride themselves in deciding 
what their towns will look like, now have few options when they try to 
stop or even negotiate a different site for broadcast or cellular 
towers. In Vermont, we have had several communities, Shelburne, Bethel, 
and Charlotte, run directly into this problem. What used to be their 
right to decide these decisions under zoning laws was up-ended.
  These communities understand that there will be new towers. Demand 
for wireless services has skyrocketed over the last few years. The 
mountains and hills of Vermont make many Vermonters joke that cell 
phones are more useful as paper weights than as a way to talk with 
friends and family. However, Vermonters and people across the country 
do not believe that we have to sacrifice our scenic views and 
residential areas to ensure wireless coverage.
  As a Vermonter, I do not want to wake up ten years from now and see 
my State turned into a pincushion of antennas and towers. That is why I 
am introducing these bills today. In a way, these bills are the 
culmination of a long battle with the Federal Communications Commission 
and in the courts to protect local authority.
  In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission seized on the 
legislative loophole and proposed an expansive new rule to prevent 
State and local zoning laws from regulating the placement of cell and 
broadcast towers on the basis of environmental considerations, aviation 
safety, or other locally-determined matters. I fought this proposed 
rule and was joined by many Vermonters, Governor Dean, the Vermont 
Environmental Board, mayors, zoning officials and others. I also joined 
with many Vermonters and the rest of the Vermont Congressional 
Delegation to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that 
the preemption of local power to issue building permits was a clear 
violation of the 10th Amendment.
  Unfortunately, that petition failed and now I am introducing 
legislation to fix a problem Congress created. The preemption of local 
authority should never have happened. Health, safety, and local land 
use issues should be left in the hands of those who know these issues 
best and can find a way to balance the needs of their community--the 
local zoning authorities.
  In Vermont, we actually have a very well-tested and successful way of 
finding a balance between protecting the environment, the health and 
safety of Vermonters, and meeting economic demands. It's called Act 
250. It was adopted over three decades ago when Vermonters realized 
that our cherished hillsides and New England towns could be overrun 
with homes. Now, the same realization has occurred with cell and 
broadcast towers.
  My bill will not prohibit new towers. It will simply let local 
officials use their state and local protections, like Act 250, find the 
best solution for their community.
  I think that many of my colleagues would agree that it is not too 
much to ask that telecommunication companies follow the zoning laws 
that apply to everyone else.
  In fact, we already have ways to meet the needs of telecommunication 
companies and communities. There are other viable alterative 
communication technologies to massive towers. I have in the past 
discussed how PCS-Over-Cable and PCS-Over-Fiber technologies can 
provide digital cellular service using small antennas, eliminating the 
need for large towers. These small antennas can be attached to an 
existing telephone pole or lamp post. Not only is this technology more 
aesthetically pleasing, but because the companies do not need to buy 
land for these antennas, these delivery mechanisms are cheaper as well. 
We should allow local government to require the usage of these less 
intrusive technologies,
  This is ultimately a very simple issue. It's an issue of local 
control. I believe that it is local authorities, not Federal 
regulators, who should determine when and where these structures are 
built. I urge my fellow Senators to join me in supporting this 
legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of these bills and 
two section-by-section analyses be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the additional material was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 3102

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

[[Page S10381]]

     SECTION. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Control of Broadcast 
     Towers Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The placement, construction, and modification of 
     broadcast transmission facilities near residential 
     communities and facilities such as schools can greatly reduce 
     the value of residential properties, destroy the views from 
     properties, produce radio frequency interference, raise 
     concerns about potential long-term health effects of such 
     facilities, and reduce substantially the desire to live in 
     the areas of such facilities.
       (2) States and local governments have traditionally 
     regulated development and should be able to exercise control 
     over the placement, construction, and modification of 
     broadcast transmission facilities through the use of zoning 
     and other land use regulations relating to the protection of 
     the environment, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes 
     policies to govern interstate and international 
     communications by television, radio, wire, satellite and 
     cable. The Commission ensures compliance of such activities 
     with applicable Federal laws, including the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National Historic 
     Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such activities.
       (4) The Commission defers to State and local authorities 
     which regulate the placement, construction, and modification 
     of broadcast transmission facilities through the use of 
     zoning, construction and building, and environmental and 
     safety regulations in order to protect the environment and 
     the health, safety, and general welfare of communities and 
     the public.
       (5) On August 19, 1997, the Commission issued a proposed 
     rule, MM Docket No. 97-182, which would preempt the 
     application of most State and local zoning, environmental, 
     construction and building, and other regulations affecting 
     the placement, construction, and modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities.
       (6) The telecommunications industry and its experts should 
     be expected to have access to the best and most recent 
     technical information and should therefore be held to the 
     highest standards in terms of their representations, 
     assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
       (b) Purpose.--The purpose of this Act is to confirm that 
     State and local governments are the appropriate entities--
       (1) to regulate the placement, construction, and 
     modification of broadcast transmission facilities consistent 
     with State and local zoning, construction and building, 
     environmental, and land use regulations;
       (2) to regulate the placement, construction, and 
     modification of broadcast transmission facilities so that 
     their placement, construction, or modification will not 
     interfere with the safe and efficient use of public airspace 
     or otherwise compromise or endanger the health, safety, and 
     general welfare of the public; and
       (3) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the 
     placement, construction, or modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities, and providers of services using such 
     facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of 
     representations and statements placed in the record of 
     hearings for such permits, licenses, or approvals.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARDING PREEMPTION 
                   OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER BROADCAST 
                   TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Federal 
     Communications Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or 
     otherwise directly or indirectly implement any portion of 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.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND 
                   MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST TRANSMISSION 
                   FACILITIES.

       Part I of title III of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 
     U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``SEC. 340. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST 
                   TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       ``(a) Authority To Require Least Intrusive Facilities.--
       ``(1) In general.--A State or local government may deny an 
     application to place, construct, or modify broadcast 
     transmission facilities on the basis that alternative 
     technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of 
     delivering broadcast signals comparable to that proposed to 
     be delivered by such facilities in a manner that is less 
     intrusive to the community concerned than such facilities.
       ``(2) Considerations.--In determining under paragraph (1) 
     the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or 
     structures for the transmission of broadcast signals, a State 
     or local government may consider the aesthetics of such 
     technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental 
     impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the 
     radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such 
     technologies, systems, or structures.
       ``(3) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of the 
     exercise of the authority in paragraph (1), the burden shall 
     be on the applicant.
       ``(b) Radio Interference.--A State or local government may 
     regulate the location, height, or modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities in order to address the effects of 
     radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on 
     local communities and the public.
       ``(c) Authority To Require Studies and Documentation.--No 
     provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State 
     or local government from--
       ``(1) requiring a person seeking authority to place, 
     construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities to 
     produce--
       ``(A) environmental, biological, and health studies, 
     engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance 
     of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits, 
     radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with 
     applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects 
     of such facilities on the environment, public health and 
     safety, and the general welfare of the community and the 
     public; and
       ``(B) documentation of the compliance of such facilities 
     with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety 
     standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects 
     effecting navigable airspace; or
       ``(2) refusing to grant authority to such person to place, 
     construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction 
     of such government if such person fails to produce studies, 
     reports, or documentation required under paragraph (1).
       ``(d) Construction.--Nothing in this section may be 
     construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a 
     State or local government to ensure compliance with or 
     otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or 
     representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an 
     applicant with the State or local government for authority to 
     place, construct, or modify broadcast transmission facilities 
     within the jurisdiction of the State or local government.
       ``(e) Broadcast Transmission Facility Defined.--In this 
     section, the term `broadcast transmission facility' means the 
     equipment, or any portion thereof, with which a broadcaster 
     transmits and receives the radiofrequency waves that carry 
     the services of the broadcaster, regardless of whether the 
     equipment is sited on one or more towers or other structures 
     owned by a person or entity other than the broadcaster, and 
     includes the location of such equipment.''.

  Section-by-Section Summary of Local Control of Broadcast Towers Act

     SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The subtitle may be cited as the ``Local Control of 
     Broadcast Towers Act.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       The bill finds that as the placement of broadcast towers or 
     other broadcast structures (heretofore referred to as 
     ``broadcast transmission facilities'') can reduce property 
     values, create radio frequency interference, and raise 
     potential long-term health concerns. It also finds that state 
     and local authorities should have the same control to 
     regulate the placement of broadcast transmission facilities 
     as they would with any other type of construction. The 
     purpose of the bill is to reinstate the right of state and 
     local governments to regulate the placement, construction, 
     and modification of these facilities.

     SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARDING PREEMPTION 
                   OF STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER BROADCAST 
                   TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.

       Section 3 prohibits the Federal Communications Commission 
     (FCC) from implementing ``Preemption of State and Local 
     Zoning and Land Use Restrictions on Siting, Placement and 
     Construction of Broadcast Station Transmission Facilities.'' 
     This rule prevents state and local governments from 
     regulating the construction or modification of broadcast 
     transmission facilities.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND 
                   MODIFICATION OF BROADCAST TRANSMISSION 
                   FACILITIES.

       Section 4 adds a new section to Part I of title III. It 
     gives state and local governments the power to deny 
     applications to place, construct, or modify broadcast 
     transmission facilities on the basis that less intrusive 
     technologies are available to provide comparable service. 
     Denials can be issued for reasons of aesthetics, 
     environmental impact, radio frequency interference, or 
     radiation emissions. Burden of proof lies with the applicant.
       Section 4(b) also stipulates that state and local 
     governments are empowered to regulate the location, height, 
     or modification of broadcast transmission facilities to 
     reduce the effects of radio interference. State and local 
     governments may also require environmental, biological, and 
     health studies, engineering studies, or other comparable 
     documentation from any person seeking to build or modify a 
     broadcast transmission facility. In addition, state and local 
     governments may require documentation of compliance with any 
     applicable Federal, State, or local regulation regarding 
     aviation safety standards. Failure to provide such 
     documentation or studies is grounds for a denial to construct 
     or modify a facility.
       Section 4(e) defines broadcast transmission facilities.

[[Page S10382]]

                                S. 3103

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Local Control of Cellular 
     Towers Act''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The placement, construction, and modification of 
     personal wireless services facilities (also known as wireless 
     facilities) near residential communities and facilities such 
     as schools can greatly reduce the value of residential 
     properties, destroy the views from properties, produce radio 
     frequency interference, raise concerns about potential long-
     term health effects of such facilities, and reduce 
     substantially the desire to live in the areas of such 
     facilities.
       (2) States and local governments have traditionally 
     regulated development and should be able to exercise control 
     over the placement, construction, and modification of 
     wireless facilities through the use of zoning and other land 
     use regulations relating to the protection of the 
     environment, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (3) The Federal Communications Commission establishes 
     policies to govern interstate and international 
     communications by television, radio, wire, satellite and 
     cable. The Commission ensures the compliance of such 
     activities with a variety of Federal laws, including the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the National 
     Historic Preservation Act, in its decision-making on such 
     activities.
       (4) Under section 332(c)(7)(A) of the Communications Act of 
     1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(A)), the Commission defers to State 
     and local authorities that regulate the placement, 
     construction, and modification of wireless facilities through 
     the use of zoning and other land use regulations.
       (5) Alternative technologies for the placement, 
     construction, and modification of wireless facilities may 
     meet the needs of a wireless services provider in a less 
     intrusive manner than the technologies proposed by the 
     wireless services provider, including the use of small towers 
     that do not require blinking aircraft safety lights, break 
     skylines, or protrude above tree canopies.
       (6) It is in the interest of the Nation that the 
     requirements of the Commission with respect to the 
     application of State and local ordinances to the placement, 
     construction and modification of wireless facilities (for 
     example WT Docket No. 97-192, ET Docket No. 93-62, RM-8577, 
     and FCC 97-303, 62 F.R. 47960) be modified so as--
       (A) to permit State and local governments to exercise their 
     zoning and other land use authorities to regulate the 
     placement, construction, and modification of such facilities; 
     and
       (B) to place the burden of proof in civil actions, and in 
     actions before the Commission and State and local authorities 
     relating to the placement, construction, and modification of 
     such facilities, on the person that seeks to place, 
     construct, or modify such facilities.
       (7) PCS-Over-Cable, PCS-Over-Fiber Optic, and satellite 
     telecommunications systems, including Low-Earth Orbit 
     satellites, offer a significant opportunity to provide so-
     called ``911'' emergency telephone service throughout much of 
     the United States without unduly intruding into or effecting 
     the environment, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (8) The Federal Aviation Administration must rely upon 
     State and local governments to regulate the placement, 
     construction, and modification of telecommunications 
     facilities near airports or high-volume air traffic areas 
     such as corridors of airspace or commonly used flyways. The 
     proposed rules of the Commission to preempt State and local 
     zoning and other land-use regulations for the siting of such 
     facilities will have a serious negative impact on aviation 
     safety, airport capacity and investment, the efficient use of 
     navigable airspace, public health and safety, and the general 
     welfare of the community and the public.
       (9) The telecommunications industry and its experts should 
     be expected to have access to the best and most recent 
     technical information and should therefore be held to the 
     highest standards in terms of their representations, 
     assertions, and promises to governmental authorities.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are as follows:
       (1) To repeal certain limitations on State and local 
     authority regarding the placement, construction, and 
     modification of personal wireless services facilities 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--
       (A) to regulate the placement, construction, or 
     modification of personal wireless services facilities with 
     respect to their impacts on land use, including radio 
     frequency interference and radio frequency radiation, in 
     order to protect the environment, public health and safety, 
     and the general welfare of the community and the public;
       (B) to regulate the placement, construction, and 
     modification of personal wireless services facilities so that 
     they will not interfere with the safe and efficient use of 
     public airspace or otherwise compromise or endanger the 
     public health and safety and the general welfare of the 
     community and the public; and
       (C) to hold accountable applicants for permits for the 
     placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless 
     services facilities, and providers of services using such 
     facilities, for the truthfulness and accuracy of 
     representations and statements placed in the record of 
     hearings for permits, licenses, or approvals for such 
     facilities.

     SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL 
                   WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES

       (a) Limitations on State and Local Regulation of 
     Facilities.--Subparagraph (B) of section 332(c)(7) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)) is amended--
       (1) by striking clause (iv);
       (2) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv); and
       (3) in clause (iv), as so redesignated--
       (A) in the first sentence, by striking ``may, within 30 
     days'' and all that follows through the end of the sentence 
     and inserting ``may commence an action in any court of 
     competent jurisdiction. Such action shall be commenced within 
     30 days after such action or failure to act unless the State 
     concerned has established a different period for the 
     commencement of such action.''; and
       (B) by striking the third sentence and inserting the 
     following: ``In any such action in which a person seeking to 
     place, construct, or modify a personal wireless services 
     facility is a party, such person shall bear the burden of 
     proof, regardless of who commences such action.''.
       (b) Prohibition on Adoption of Rule Regarding Relief From 
     State and Local Regulation of Facilities.--Notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law, the Federal Communications 
     Commission shall not adopt as a final rule or otherwise 
     directly or indirectly implement any portion of the proposed 
     rule set forth in ``Procedures for Reviewing Requests for 
     Relief From State and Local Regulation Pursuant to Section 
     332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934'', WT 
     Docket No. 97-192, released August 25, 1997.
       (c) Authority Over Placement, Construction, and 
     Modification of Facilities.--Such section 332(c)(7) is 
     further amended--
       (1) by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D); 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new 
     subparagraph (C):
       ``(C) Additional limitations.--
       ``(i) Authority to require least intrusive facilities.--

       ``(I) In general.--A State or local government may deny an 
     application to place, construct, or modify personal wireless 
     services facilities on the basis that alternative 
     technologies, delivery systems, or structures are capable of 
     delivering a personal wireless services signal comparable to 
     that proposed to be delivered by such facilities in a manner 
     that is less intrusive to the community concerned than such 
     facilities.
       ``(II) Considerations.--In determining under subclause (I) 
     the intrusiveness of technologies, delivery systems, or 
     structures for personal wireless services facilities, a State 
     or local government may consider the aesthetics of such 
     technologies, systems, or structures, the environmental 
     impact of such technologies, systems, or structures, and the 
     radio frequency interference or radiation emitted by such 
     technologies, systems, or structures.
       ``(III) Burden of proof.--In any hearing for purposes of 
     the exercise of the authority in subclause (I), the burden 
     shall be on the applicant.

       ``(ii) Radio interference.--A State or local government may 
     regulate the location, height, or modification of personal 
     wireless services facilities in order to address the effects 
     of radio frequency interference caused by such facilities on 
     local communities and the public.
       ``(iii) Authority to require studies and documentation.--No 
     provision of this Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State 
     or local government from--

       ``(I) requiring a person seeking authority to place, 
     construct, or modify personal wireless services facilities to 
     produce--

       ``(aa) environmental, biological, and health studies, 
     engineering reports, or other documentation of the compliance 
     of such facilities with radio frequency exposure limits, 
     radio frequency interference impacts, and compliance with 
     applicable laws, rules, and regulations governing the effects 
     of such facilities on the environment, public health and 
     safety, and the general welfare of the community and the 
     public; and
       ``(bb) documentation of the compliance of such facilities 
     with applicable Federal, State, and local aviation safety 
     standards or aviation obstruction standards regarding objects 
     effecting navigable airspace; or

       ``(II) refusing to grant authority to such person to place, 
     construct, or modify such facilities within the jurisdiction 
     of such government if such person fails to produce studies, 
     reports, or documentation required under subclause (I).

       ``(iv) Construction.--Nothing in this subparagraph may be 
     construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority of a 
     State or local government to ensure compliance with or 
     otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or 
     representations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an 
     applicant with the State or local government for authority to 
     place, construct, or modify personal wireless

[[Page S10383]]

     services facilities within the jurisdiction of the State or 
     local government.''.

   Section-by-Section Summary of Local Control of Cellular Towers Act

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       The subtitle may be cited as the ``Local Control of 
     Cellular Towers Act.''

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       The bill finds that as the placement of cellular towers can 
     reduce property values, create radio frequency interference, 
     and raise potential long-term health concerns. It also finds 
     that state and local authorities should have the same control 
     to regulate the placement of cellular facilities as they 
     would with any other type of construction. The purpose of the 
     bill is to reinstate the right of state and local governments 
     to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of 
     these facilities.

     SEC. 3. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, 
                   CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION OF PERSONAL 
                   WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITIES.

       This section of the bill amends title 47 of the U.S. Code.
       Section 3(a) strikes 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), clause iv, which 
     prevented state and local governments from regulating the 
     placement, construction, or modification of personal wireless 
     service facilities on the basis of environmental effects of 
     radio frequency emissions. Clause v of the same section of 
     the Code is amended to allow States to determine the timeline 
     for any appeal of a State or local decision that adversely 
     affects a personal wireless service provider. A personal 
     wireless service provider is no longer allowed to make a 
     further appeal to the Federal Communications Commission 
     (FCC). Furthermore, the bill clarifies that the party that 
     wishes to build a personal wireless service facility bears 
     the burden of proof in any appeal of state or local law.
       Section 3(b) prohibits the FCC from implementing 
     ``Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief from State and 
     Local Regulation Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v).'' This 
     rule stipulated the procedures for appealing state and local 
     regulations to the FCC.
       Section 3(c) adds a new subparagraph (C) to Section 
     332(c)(7) to give State and local governments the power to 
     deny applications to place, construct, or modify personal 
     wireless service facilities on the basis that less intrusive 
     technologies are available that provide comparable service. 
     Denials can be issued for reasons of aesthetics, 
     environmental impact, radio frequency interference, or 
     radiation emissions.
       Section 3(c) also stipulates that state and local 
     governments are empowered to regulate the location, height, 
     or modification of personal wireless service facilities to 
     reduce the effects of radio interference. State and local 
     governments may also require environmental, biological, and 
     health studies, engineering studies, or other comparable 
     documentation from any person seeking to build or modify a 
     personal wireless service facility. In addition, state and 
     local governments may require documentation of compliance 
     with any applicable Federal, State, or local regulation 
     regarding aviation safety standards. Failure to provide such 
     documentation or studies is grounds for a denial to construct 
     or modify a facility.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to rise today to express my 
support for the Local Control of Cellular Towers Bill, as well as the 
Local Control of Broadcast Towers Bill. I am pleased to be a cosponsor 
of these two pieces of legislation and commend my colleague from 
Vermont, Senator Leahy, for his continued work on this issue.
  The 1996 Telecommunications Act preempts State and local zoning laws, 
transferring jurisdiction away from State and local authorities to the 
Federal government. The legislation that we are introducing today would 
return that jurisdiction to the State and local authorities that are 
best equipped to make decisions regarding the placement and 
construction of cellular and broadcast towers.
  In Vermont, new development and construction is governed by Act 250, 
an environmental land use law specifically written to control and 
manage development, while maintaining a balance between environmental 
protection and economic growth. Act 250 maintains this equilibrium by 
placing the permitting rights in the hands of local environmental 
review boards with appeal rights to the Vermont Environmental Board. 
Act 250 is therefore administered by men and women who are directly 
involved in their communities and thoroughly familiar with local 
concerns.
  The state of Vermont established Act 250 in response to a period of 
unchecked development that began in the 1960's. As the Attorney General 
for the state at the time, I was one of the primary drafters of the 
environmental land use law. Since 1969, Act 250 has protected our 
environment, managed development, and provided a forum for neighbors, 
municipalities and other interest groups to voice their concerns about 
new development. I see no reason why the construction of cellular and 
broadcast towers should not be governed by Act 250 as well, and I 
remain hopeful that these two bills will reverse what the 1996 Act set 
forth.
  Although I recognize the importance of building a sound and 
functional wireless network, I urge Congress to allow states and local 
communities to build that network so the negative impacts of tower 
construction are kept to a minimum. Among Vermont's greatest assets are 
its mountain ranges and beautiful views. Giving local communities 
authority over tower construction and placement is a step towards 
preserving and protecting those assets.
                                 ______