[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 41 (Monday, March 29, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H1613-H1614]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 INTRODUCTION OF RESOLUTION EXPRESSING SENSE OF CONGRESS THAT ALCOHOL 
 ADVERTISING DURING BROADCASTS OF COLLEGIATE SPORTING EVENTS SHOULD BE 
                               TERMINATED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, not long ago the National Academy of 
Science released a report on preventing underage drinking. This week, 
the Final Four NCAA basketball playoffs will occur. I believe there is 
a connection. The National Academy of Science report recommended that 
colleges and universities ban alcohol advertising and promotion on 
campus. Other important research points to the problem of alcohol 
consumption on college campuses. For example, the proportion of

[[Page H1614]]

college students who say they drink to get drunk is rising. It is 
almost one-half. Underage drinking costs the United States $53 billion 
annually. There are roughly 3 million teenage alcoholics in our 
country. Despite these grim statistics concerning underage drinking, 
alcohol advertising accounts for more than one-half of college sports 
advertising revenue. The 2002 NCAA basketball tournament had more 
alcohol ads than the Super Bowl, World Series, college bowl games, and 
Monday Night Football combined. The basketball tournament has more than 
16 times the rate of alcohol advertising as normal programming.
  A spokesperson from the NCAA recently said such advertising is ``not 
inconsistent with our mission.'' I guess I would beg to differ with 
that statement. The NCAA statement of purpose indicates that part of 
its mission is to prepare student athletes for lifetime leadership. The 
NCAA handbook states that NCAA policies should exclude advertisements 
that do not seem to be in the best interests of higher education.
  In view of the fact that nearly one-half of college students are 
binge drinkers; 1,400 college students die annually from alcohol-
related incidents, which is the leading cause of death on the college 
campus; more than 70,000 students are victims of alcohol-related sexual 
assaults; 500,000 students are injured each year while drunk; recent 
recruiting scandals at NCAA schools were often alcohol-related, I would 
have to say that there is great inconsistency in linking college 
athletics with the alcohol industry. The 12-, 13-, 14- and 15-year-olds 
watching the tournament this weekend will witness great athletes 
display their skills. These young people will identify with those 
athletes, and they want to be like them. Sandwiched into the telecasts 
will be many ads promoting alcohol; and most of the ads will contain 
attractive young people, celebrations and sometimes adolescent humor. 
The connection between players on the court and the alcohol advertising 
will be subtle, but it will be very real.
  Dean Smith, my friend, the former North Carolina basketball coach, 
said this: ``If aspirin were the leading cause of death on college 
campuses, do you think chancellors, presidents and trustees would allow 
aspirin commercials on basketball and football telecasts? They 
wouldn't, not for a minute.''
  I spoke today with John Wooden, in my time maybe the greatest coach 
of all time. He won 10 NCAA basketball championships in 12 years. John 
said that he wholeheartedly endorses taking alcohol advertising out of 
college sports. Andy Geiger, the Ohio State athletic director, opposes 
alcohol advertising. Eighty-four percent of Americans think advertising 
beer on college games is not in the best interest of higher education. 
Seventy-one percent of Americans support a total ban of alcohol ads on 
college games. Seventy-seven percent of parents say it is wrong for 
colleges to profit from alcohol advertising while trying to combat 
alcohol abuse on their campuses.
  The alcohol industry will counter by indicating how much money they 
spend to curb underage drinking. However, in 2001 the alcohol industry 
spent a total of $811 million on product promotion and only 1 percent 
of the ads promoted responsibility. The placement of their ads and the 
content of their ads cater to a youthful market. Young people always 
represent future customers.
  I do not advocate Congress legislating NCAA matters. The NCAA is a 
voluntary organization and such legislation should be left to the 
schools. And I do not believe that eliminating alcohol ads on college 
sports will end underage drinking. However, I do urge my colleagues to 
support House Resolution 575, expressing the sense of the House that 
the NCAA should affirm its commitment to a policy of discouraging 
alcohol use among underage students by ending all alcohol advertising 
during radio and television broadcasts of collegiate sporting events.
  Hopefully, this resolution will help college administrators see the 
untenable position they now occupy and move to end current alcohol 
advertising.

                          ____________________