PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 25, 1996
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require the Federal Communications Commission, in its review of any application for renewal of a commercial or noncommercial television broadcast license, to consider the extent to which the licensee has participated in efforts to educate and inform the public as to the dangers of drug and substance abuse and appropriate methods for obtaining treatment. Prohibits the Commission from finding that a renewal is consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity unless the applicant demonstrates that: (1) the station has broadcast public service announcements concerning drug and substance abuse and treatment during each hour of its broadcasting day; and (2) the duration of such announcements equals not less than five percent of the duration of commercial advertisements during that hour. Requires the Commission to include in its annual reports to the Congress an analysis of broadcasters' progress in meeting the requirements of this Act.
People & committees
Rep. Mica, John L. [R-FL-7] · R–FL
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 Telecommunications and Finance.
Referred to the House Committee on Commerce.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E648)
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: Apr 7, 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.3334 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.3334 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.3334 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.3334 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.