PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2003
Maintaining and Ensuring Diversity and Integrity on the Airwaves Act of 2003 or MEDIA Act of 2003 - Amends the Adminsitrative Procedures Act to prohibit a Federal agency from prescribing substantial and extensive revisions to its regulations unless the revised regulations have been published in proposed form to afford interested parties the opportunity to submit data, views, or arguments thereon.
Amends the: (1) Communications Act of 1934 to extend the interval for Federal Communication Commission (FCC) review of its regulations from every even-numbered year to every five years beginning with 2008; and (2) Telecommunications Act of 1996 to eliminate biennial FCC review of its rules concerning broadcast ownership.
Prohibits the FCC from taking any action to repeal or modify a regulation determined to be no longer necessary in the public interest unless the FCC: (1) has completed its 2003 report to Congress concerning a periodic review of regulations to eliminate telecommunications market entry barriers; (2) has included in such report an analysis of how any change in existing regulations is consistent with national policy and would affect such barriers; and (3) determines that such repeal or modification is consistent with the removal of such barriers as well as prescribed policies. Prohibits license transfers, pending completion of such requirements, with respect to television or radio stations the aggregate value of which exceeds $50 million when the party involved owns, operates, or controls another television or radio broadcast station.
People & committees
Rep. Conyers, John, Jr. [D-MI-14] · D–MI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1059)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 2025. 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 H.R.2212 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 H.R.2212 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 H.R.2212 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 H.R.2212 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.