WASHINGTON-Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) said last week he opposes the Leahy-Jeffords bill to repeal the antenna siting pre-emption law and will intervene if the wireless industry and state and local officials fail to resolve the controversy.
“I don’t think it (the bill) is viable,” and it “simply goes too far,” said McCain in a press briefing with reporters.
McCain’s opposition presents a huge hurdle for the bill to overcome. The powerful Arizona lawmaker, mentioned as a possible GOP presidential contender in 2000, has oversight of the telecommunications industry.
Besides differing with Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and James Jeffords (R-Vt.) on siting policy, McCain could throw a wrench into the their plans by asserting jurisdiction and stifling any effort to get the pre-emption repeal bill incorporated into another piece of legislation.
Leahy and Jeffords, aware McCain does not share their views on antenna siting, did not refer the bill to the Commerce Committee.
Thomas Wheeler, president of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, declined to say how he would counter the Leahy-Jeffords effort but said the strategy will emphasize the negative impact the measure would have on competition and safety.
Likewise, Jay Kitchen, president of the Personal Communications Industry Association, said he will try to convince Leahy and Jeffords that increased wireless competition will lower bills for their constituents but that antennas need to be erected to make that happen.
But with tourism the engine of the Vermont economy, it is unclear whether lower mobile bills will change many hearts and minds of Vermont citizens and their elected officials in the nation’s capital.
That McCain would not firmly commit to holding a hearing, even though he and Senate communications committee Chairman Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) plan a series of hearings next year on the 1996 telecom act implementation, reflects just how thorny the issue is for lawmakers.
While McCain is obliged to ensure the telecom act fosters more competition, he and his colleagues have constituencies of home owners, mayors, soccer moms, environmental groups and others with an interest in antenna siting. The lawmakers’ dilemma is one of how to enforce a national policy of competition yet still respect state and local rights.
As such, McCain hopes warring factions can work out the problem so federal intervention is not necessary. So far, though, that approach has not worked on this emotionally charged issue and there are no signs that will change.
If anything, the issue has become more polarized over the past two years.
“I think we need to reach some kind of an accommodation where local and state authorities have a clear input in the process but don’t have a complete veto power,” said McCain. “There should be some kind of consultative process, with the right of some sort of appeal associated with it, in order to resolve this issue.”
McCain said he and Burns, sitting next to him, are not intensive “to the marring of the landscape that towers inflect. But at the same time, we also know some of the very same people who don’t want any blot on the countryside but complain that they’re not getting service that others are.
“If we can’t find a common ground, then clearly we’re going to have some legislation and hearings associated it,” said McCain. “What we hope is we can work it out.”
Burns, a former county commissioner who previously signaled he might oppose federal pre-emption, agreed with McCain that competition requires antenna construction and there is proof in Montana that it can be done without damaging scenery.
