    [Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton (1997, Book I)]
    [April 1, 1997]
    [Pages 368-370]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office www.gpo.gov]

    Remarks on the Advertising of Distilled Liquor and an Exchange With
    Reporters
    April 1, 1997

        The President. Thank you very much.
        The Vice President and I have worked very hard for the last 4 years
    to help parents protect the health and the safety of their children. Our
    parents face enormous pressures today, greater than ever before, and
    they need our help as they try to guard their children from harmful
    influences.
        That's why we fought to impose appropriate regulation on the sale
    and distribution of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco and on the
    advertising of these products in a way that appeals to young people, why
    we're working to make our schools and children safe and drug-free, to
    combat gangs and youth violence.
        It's a fact that popular culture is not always popular with parents,
    because it's not always good for their children. That was the thinking
    behind the V-chip and the television rating systems, which together will
    help parents to better control which programs their children watch. You
    need only to turn on the television for an evening to know there are
    some things that children should not be watching.
        We're here today because parents now face a new challenge in
    protecting their children, the advertising of liquor on television. For
    half a century, for as long as television has been around, this has not
    been an issue. The distilled spirit industry voluntarily did not
    advertise on television. The reason was simple: It was the responsible
    thing to do. Liquor has no business with kids, and kids should have no
    business with liquor. Liquor ads on television would provide a message
    of encouragement to drink that young people simply don't need. Nothing
    good can come of it.
        Today our message to the liquor industry is simple: For 50 years you
    have kept the ban; it is the responsible thing to do. For the sake of
    our parents and our young people, please continue to keep that ban.
        I want to thank the television networks and the many television
    stations all across America which have shunned these new liquor ads.
    They have acted responsibly. I urge them to remain steadfast. I also
    want to thank Reed Hundt, the Chairman of our Federal Communications
    Commission. He has spoken out strongly and plainly to broadcasters to
    keep the voluntary ban on TV advertising.
        I agree with Chairman Hundt that the FCC has an obligation to
    consider any and all actions that would protect the public interest in
    the use of the public airwaves. So today I urge the FCC to take the next
    step. I want the Commission to explore the effects on children of the
    hard liquor industry's decision to advertise on television. And I want
    the FCC to determine what action is appropriate in response to that
    decision.
        Let me say directly again to the makers of distilled spirits: It
    should not require a Federal action to encourage you to continue to act
    responsibly. I have asked that liquor ads be kept off the air for the
    same reasons you yourself have kept them off the air for 50 long years.
    We must do nothing--nothing--that would risk encouraging more of our
    young people to drink hard liquor. That is simply common sense. Alcohol
    is a drug most abused by adolescents and teenagers. Studies show a
    strong connection between underage drinking and youth crime, including
    murder and rape. Year after year, underage drinking causes thousands of
    deadly car crashes.
        As a nation, we've worked to bring down those numbers by increasing
    the drinking age to 21 and passing and enforcing zero-tolerance
    legislation for underage drinking and driving.

    [[Page 369]]

    We've taken that further. I've asked the Transportation Secretary,
    Rodney Slater and our drug czar, General McCaffrey, to develop an
    initiative to further reduce drug use and drunk driving by young people.
        All these actions are aimed at helping parents to protect their
    children better and to help young people deal better with the temptation
    of bad influences. Now I think we should move urgently to save parents,
    young people, and our Nation from the unavoidable bad consequences of
    liquor advertising on television. I urge the manufacturers again to
    rethink their decision to break from their tradition of being
    responsible on this front. If they remain responsible, it will be easier
    for our young people to do so, and parents will have one less thing to
    worry about.
        Barring that, we will work to find ways to respond to the decision
    by the distilled spirits industry. We will do what we must do to support
    our parents, to help them do their jobs. We dare not do anything less.
        Thank you.
        Q. Mr. President, the industry is saying, why not beer and wine,
    also?
        The President. Well, for one thing, let's just focus on where we are
    now. The FCC is going to look at this whole issue, if they respond
    positively to my suggestion. But at a minimum, there should be no
    backsliding. Look at the evidence. If the evidence is as I suspect it
    will be, that a great deal of problem is caused by hard liquor ingestion
    already among young people and that advertising would cause it to be
    worse, then I think the FCC has grounds to act. But I think we ought to
    start with the principle of no backsliding. Let's don't make it worse.
        Q. Sir, the industry, in a sense, considers this a solution in
    search of a problem, because they have done so very little advertising
    on television at this point. How would you respond to that?
        The President. That's right, they have. And that's what we're trying
    to do; we're trying to nip it in the bud. We're trying to make it a dog
    that does not bark, if you will. It's not a solution in search of a
    problem; there was no problem before the announced intention to abandon
    the 50-year ban. And what we're trying to do is to nip it in the bud,
    hopefully and most importantly, by persuading them to stay with their
    policy.
        This is an area where--you know, the liquor industry has really been
    remarkably responsible for five long decades when it would have been
    easy for financial reasons for them to try to take another course. And I
    understand the financial pressures they're under, but I hope that they
    will agree to go back and embrace their original position. If they
    don't, I think it's only responsible for the Federal Communications
    Commission to explore what the likely impact of this is and if it is
    appropriate for the FCC to take action. That's what I've asked them to
    do in my letter today.
        Q. Mr. President, both the liquor industry and the advertising
    community say that you are wrong, that they are opposed to this. Don't
    you expect a major fight from them?
        The President. Sure. I mean, I guess I do expect a major fight if
    they've changed their position. And I would expect them to take the
    opposite position, but that's why we have--that's why we have public
    debate, and that's also why we have institutions like the FCC to try to
    determine what the public interest is here.
        Q. Mr. President, how was your meeting with King Hussein?
        The President. One at a time.
        Q. Alcohol is alcohol. If it sends a bad message to put ads on
    television that kids will see urging them to drink Seagrams, why
    wouldn't it send just as bad a message--the ads that they're seeing to
    urge them to drink Coors Lite or----
        The President. Well, again I will say, first of all, let's--there's
    something to be said for not making matters worse. And most of us, every
    day, make decisions in an imperfect environment in which we make
    responsible decisions. This is one thing adults have to do for their
    children all the time, in which you say, ``Well, I'm not going to make a
    perfect decision here, but at least we're not going to make things
    worse.'' And that's the position we have taken.
        I think the liquor industry itself once thought that there was a
    distinction to be drawn if, for no other reason than alcohol content,
    between beer and wine and hard liquor, which is why they observed this
    distinction for 50 years. They thought there was a distinction for 50
    years; otherwise, they would not have observed it. That was their
    opinion for 50 years, and I think they were right. And so I would say,
    the FCC--if there is no difference, if there are problems--the FCC can
    evaluate whatever evidence comes in, and the liquor industry would be
    free to present that information to the FCC.

    [[Page 370]]

        But I believe there is a distinction, and I think there is a very
    powerful argument for doing no harm. Why make things worse? Why
    backslide?

    Meeting With King Hussein of Jordan

        Q. How was your meeting with King Hussein? What was his response to
    your ideas on ways of reviving the Middle East peace process? And having
    met with him, are you in a position to now give us more detail on what
    those ideas are?
        The President. The meeting was good. He responded well to the things
    that I suggested; I responded well to the things that he suggested. And
    no, I'm not in a position to be more specific, because--let me just
    say--all of you know this--this is a very difficult time in this
    process. We have got to reestablish the sense of--on the part of the
    Israelis that the Palestinian Authority has committed to security. We
    have to reestablish on the part of the Palestinians that the Israelis
    are committed to continuing to build confidence by doing concrete things
    as contemplated by the Oslo agreement.
        This is not an easy time. The more I say about it specifically, the
    more difficult it will be for me to succeed over the long run. I can
    tell you this: The United States is prepared to take significant
    efforts--I am prepared personally to do anything I can to get this
    process back on track and to move it forward. But I think the less I say
    about it, the more likely I am to have some success in doing that,
    particularly in the next 2 to 3 weeks when we have got to try to keep
    the lid on things over there.
        As you know, we had some other incidents this morning. We've just
    got to work at it. It is not going to be easy, but I am encouraged by
    what I would have to call creative thinking on the part of all the
    parties involved, and I would include the Israelis and the Palestinians
    in that right now.

    Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu of Israel

        Q. [Inaudible]--Netanyahu when he is here this weekend?
        The President. Yes, he--I understand he's coming, and I certainly
    hope to see him. I expect to see him. If he is able to keep his travel
    plans and come on over for the AIPAC meeting, then I will certainly
    clear some time to see him. I think it's important for us to talk, and
    I'm glad he's coming.

    Note: The President spoke at 1:24 p.m. in the Roosevelt Room at the
    White House.