[Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 33, Number 14 (Monday, April 7, 1997)]
[Pages 436-438]
[Online from the Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

<R04>
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. 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

[[Page 437]]

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 438]]

    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?

President's Meeting With King Hussein

    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.

Visit by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu

    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.