The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer

GWEN IFILL: Good evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Jim Lehrer is on vacation. On the NewsHour tonight, Margaret Warner gets three perspectives on the hijacking of the Indian airliner; with health correspondent Susan Dentzer, we update a plan to regulate online prescriptions; media correspondent Terence Smith talks to college editors about the 2000 elections; and Anne Taylor Fleming has our millennium essay. It all follows our summary of the news this Tuesday.

NEWS SUMMARY

GWEN IFILL: The hijackers of an Indian airlines jet made new demands today:$200 million and the release of 35 Kashmiri militants from Indian jails. The plane, with more than 150 people onboard, remained on the ground at Kandahar, Afghanistan. But the engines shut down for 12 hours, halting negotiations for a time and leaving an open door as the only source of ventilation. We'll have more on the Indian Airlines hijacking right after the News Summary tonight. President Clinton proposed new federal oversight of online drug sales today. If Congress endorses the plan, the Food and Drug Administration would have to grant its seal of approval to Internet sites which sell prescription drugs. Violators would face fines of $500,000 for each infraction. Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala commented at a Washington news conference.

DONNA SHALALA: There is increasingly some rogue sales going on that the states can't regulate, that they don't have to authority to regulate. We need to fill in the gaps here and have some kind of an overall system, so we'll be setting up legislation.

GWEN IFILL: We'll have more on the issue of online drug sales later in the program tonight. Citing public safety concerns, Seattle Mayor Paul Schell today canceled the city's publicly sponsored nighttime New Year's Eve celebration. Last week, an Algerian man tried to enter Washington State from Canada. Law enforcement officials said he carried bomb-making materials. Seattle, the mayor said, is still unsettled following the protests earlier this month at the World Trade Organization meeting. He spoke at a news conference today.

MAYOR PAUL SCHELL, Seattle: Although we are comfortable that Seattle is not a target, that is the advice that we've received from the FBI. They can't at the same time assure us that there's no risk and that at a time when a city is just recovering from the WTO and the anxieties, the heightened anxieties generally everywhere that adding another layer of uncertainty at this time was not the prudent thing to do.

GWEN IFILL: Other major cities are going ahead with New Year's Eve plans, but they're beefing up security. In New York, crews are locking down manhole covers and removing trashcans from Times Square to remove potential hiding places for bombs. In Chicago, officials plan a number of smaller gatherings, but no central event to draw large crowds. In Chechnya today, a top Russian general said troops had fought their way to within a mile of downtown Grozny. He said rebels were now isolated in the center of the Chechen capital. Despite those claims, there was no sign of Russian soldiers in central Grozny. Instead, planes and artillery continued to bombard the city. A second wave of fierce storms battered Western Europe today. In Southwestern France, 90-mile- an-hour winds uprooted trees and ripped roofs off buildings. Torrential rains caused swollen rivers to flood their banks. Three nuclear reactors at a power station near Bordeaux were closed because of the rising water. Officials said at least three million people lost power. Across Western Europe, more than 100 people have been killed since the weekend due to the violent weather. The severe storms hampered efforts to contain an oil slick that continued to wash miles of brown sludge ashore along the Brittany coastline today. The oil leaked from a tanker that sank about 45 miles off shore December 12. French Prime Minister Lionel Jospin promised today to press for stricter safety rules for global shipping. Tipper Gore was scheduled to have surgery today to remove a nodule from her thyroid gland. The vice president's wife was admitted to the Johns Hopkins University Medical Center in Baltimore. Her spokeswoman said the operation is a precaution. She said the growth would be tested to determine if it's cancerous. The American Cancer Society says 95 percent of such thyroid nodules are found to be not cancerous. The actor who starred on television as the Lone Ranger is dead. Clayton Moore rode to fame as the masked hero in the 1950's TV series. His spokesman said he died today of a heart attack at a Los Angeles-area hospital. He was 85. That's it for the News Summary tonight. Now it's on to the Indian Airlines hijacking, regulating online drug sales, an agenda 2000 interview with college editors, and a millennium essay.

FOCUS - HIJACKING

GWEN IFILL: Spencer Michels begins our coverage of the hijacking story.

SPENCER MICHELS: The engines on Indian Airlines Flight 814 have been repaired and are now working after a 12-hour shutdown, as the plane remains on the tarmac in Afghanistan for the fourth day. For the passengers, that means heat and improved conditions. The plan began its journey Friday afternoon in Katmandu, Nepal, bound for New Delhi, India. Within the hour, the Airbus jumbo jet, carrying 178 passengers and 11 crew, was hijacked and diverted by five men with pistols, knives, and grenades. Flight 814 refueled in Northern India and again in Pakistan before landing in Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, where the captors released 27 passengers, mostly women and children, and the body of one Indian man, one of several honeymooners onboard. He was killed after he reportedly disobeyed orders to not look at the hijackers. It was Saturday when Flight 814 arrived at its current location: Kandahar, Afghanistan. India agreed to start negotiating with the hijackers after they threatened to kill more passengers. Among those on board are at least 150 Indians, 12 Europeans, one American and one Canadian. The hijackers are demanding that the Indian government hand over $200 million, release 35 Kashmiri guerrillas, and free a Pakistani cleric named Maulana Masood Azhar, who's been in an Indian jail since 1994. He was one of the leaders among a group of militants trying to gain control of Kashmir, a majority Muslim territory. Much of the area has been under Indian control since the subcontinent was split into two countries in 1948 at the end of British rule. In Afghanistan, the militant Muslim Taliban government has warned the hijackers against further violence. Officials urged Indian negotiators to resolve the situation quickly.

OFFICIAL: (speaking through interpreter) In our discussions with the hijackers about the situation, they promised not to continue the killing, and finally they cooled down. But we repeat our demand to the Indian government to expedite the process and don't waste time, because time is running out.

OFFICIAL: Taliban have continued to warn hijackers that any injury to any of the hostages will result in an immediate overtaking of the aircraft by Taliban forces.

SPENCER MICHELS: In the last few days, India's government, a coalition led by Hindu nationalists, has come under attack from hostage families for reacting too slowly. Yesterday, relatives tried to storm government buildings and residences in New Delhi.

GWEN IFILL: Margaret Warner takes the story from there.

MARGARET WARNER: For more on what's behind the hijacking we turn to three experts on South Asia: Stephen Cohen, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution - he's written numerous books about politics and proliferation issues in the region; Mansoor Ijaz, born in Pakistan and trained as a nuclear physicist, is now an investment banker - he's also a frequent op/ed columnist for international publications and is now an American citizen; and Pranay Gupte, editor and publisher of the Earth Times and a columnist for Newsweek International - born in India, he's now a U.S. citizen as well.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mansoor Ijaz, tell us more about who these hijackers are and what they're really after.

MANSOOR IJAZ: Well, I think these hijackers are elements of these fringe radical groups that were born out of the end of the Afghan War in the late 1980's, the war in which the Pakistanis and the United States fought against the Soviet Union and Afghanistan. The problem is that these hijackers represent today a much more virile and radical strain of the Islamic movements that have been resisting the Indian occupation in Muslim majority Kashmir. So in that sense I think these people are uncontrollable. I think they're people who don't have an agenda that is any more than trying to ensure that the world know that Islamic radicalism is here to stay and to send a message to the Indian government that if you think you can hold on to Kashmir and not negotiate a proper solution to its long-term stability that these terrorist acts will continue over and over and over again.

MARGARET WARNER: Pranay Gupte, how do you read that?

PRANAY GUPTE: I'm not so sure I agree with Mansoor, Margaret, because radicalism in that area is far, far older than this current episode, tragic though it is. It goes back more than 30 years when the subcontinent was split into two; that these hijackers and what we know of them suggest they are young. These hijackers clearly have a sensibility that flows out of frustration, frustration that in their controls Kashmir that the matter has not been resolved, and, after all, drawing attention to their cause is something that terrorists love to be able to do, particularly as the new year is about to dawn. New cycles are generally on the low side and the quiet side. What better way than to see the attention to themselves?

MARGARET WARNER: You disagree then with Mansoor Ijaz - you think these are indigenous Kashmiri Muslims?

PRANAY GUPTE: I do, indeed. In fact, four of these have been identified by the Indian government as Pakistani citizens. One of them has been identified as possibly an Afghan, and a sixth person as a Nepali, possibly a mercenary. Well, my projection is that perhaps you ought to look at where did they board the plane from, why Nepal, was that route carefully mapped? Was it scouted for its lack of security at Mandou Airport? So that this is not an isolated incident, as I see it. It really flows from the fact that there is an ongoing movement to destabilize the region.

MARGARET WARNER: Stephen Cohen.

STEPHEN COHEN: The group apparently are consistent members of the Mujahadeen, which is a group that's been put on the terrorist list by the United States. But there's the possibility that one of the members of this group - hijackers - is the brother of the person they're trying to release, so it may turn out to be much les than we think it is; it may simply be a family operation; they're attempting to spring one of the family members. The fact that the Pakistanis have talked to the father of these two sons and possibly putting pressure on the father may be part of the situation.

MARGARET WARNER: Wait. Are you saying that the Pakistani government is - you understand - is putting pressure on the hijackers to pull back?

STEPHEN COHEN: The Pakistan government has interviewed - and I'd put that in quotes - the father and other relatives of one of the hijackers, and in present day Pakistan those interviews can be rather vigorous. And it may well be that the Pakistanis are even working with the Indians to help determine who the hijackers are and to see if it is a family operation, as opposed to an organizational hijacking.

MARGARET WARNER: What do you see, Mansoor Ijaz, as the Pakistani government's role or connection here? General Musharraf, the new military leader of Pakistan, said today we have no - the Pakistani government has absolutely no involvement in this operation.

MANSOOR IJAZ: I would say that probably that statement in and of itself is correct; that is that I can't imagine that any government in that part of the world would be stupid enough to involve themselves in a terrorist act of this type. Having said that, it has to be kept in mind that for the better part of the last two decades, and certainly in the last decade where the Kashmir problem has become much more visible, it is clear to me that Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus has provided more than just moral support to the Kashmiri and Mujahadeen or some of these other groups operating there. The problem is to identify how Pakistan can now, as a government, make... Take a responsible action and help end the hijacking with this military intelligence apparatus. That is, if they really aren't involved in any way, then the best way to prove that to the outside world is to take a leading role in ensuring that the hijacking is brought to an end.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, before we jump to how to bring it to an end, Pranay Gupte, give us now your assessment of India's reaction here. First it did not negotiate, then under threats, really, from the hijackers that they were going to start killing people, it began negotiating. How do you read that?

PRANAY GUPTE: Well, I think the Indian government's approach to the whole situation has been quite moderate and studied and deliberate. What else could they have done? Could they have immediately jumped into the fray and said, yes, you know, our citizens have been held hostage; therefore, we should be out there acquiescing to their demands? No. I think the Indian government realized that perhaps things ought to settle down. They knew it was not in the self-interest of the hijackers to go bumping off the passengers immediately, although they did kill one passenger, as you know. Nonetheless, their approach has been to exam the facts, to be able to examine what is it that the hijackers are actually seeking. So much of this, Margaret, is political theater. You know, it's to grab attention, do what the hijackers seek to be the fundamental problem, which remains that of Kashmir. The hijacking is only one episode intended to advance that particular cause and I think the Indian government has take an very thoughtful and I would say a rather... not a model case, because none of this situation suggests a model case, but something that I think is likely to be if not a case study, at least a study in how to undertake diplomacy in a prudent, wise fashion.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Stephen Cohen, many governments believe you don't-- including the U.S. Government-- we don't negotiate with hijackers. How do you explain... do you think this is the right thing for the Indian government to do and how do you explain --

STEPHEN COHEN: Well, they have to negotiate with hijackers unless they're willing to sacrifice more than 160 lives. The question is whether or not they can do a deal with the hijackers. I think that if this does turn out to be a personal hijacking, it may be more difficult than less difficult now to expect the hijackers to continue on with this for some time. To me, the interesting thing about this event is that it's turned enemies into allies and allies into enemies. The Indian government was hostile to the Taliban and now they're working with the Taliban. Whereas the Taliban head was alleged to have been supporting such groups as this and now they're very much embarrassed by these people turning up on their doorstep and first they tried to get rid of them, push them out, then they offered their cooperation to not only the Indians but other foreign governments in dealing with the hijackers. So, it's been a transforming experience in terms of everybody's relationship with Afghanistan.

MARGARET WARNER: The Taliban's role is interesting here, isn't it?

MANSOOR IJAZ: You know, it is interesting in the following sense and that is that if you believe the people that are on that airplane are a virile strain of Islamic extremism, then who better to deal with them than Islamic extremism's - you know -- clear...

MARGARET WARNER: Born out of the same conflict in Afghanistan?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Exactly. And in that sense I think the Taliban can play a very constructive role and I think they are playing that role by trying to keep the temperament, if you will, inside that aircraft at a lower pitch.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. Now, go on, Mansoor Ijaz, and explain what you meant when you said it's time for the Pakistani government to cooperate with the Indian government to solve this. What is the solution?

MANSOOR IJAZ: For five decades, now, Kashmir has been a flashpoint between India and Pakistan, and for five decades the United States and other western powers have focused on trying to bring peace and security to the region above even economic development, which is probably the next most important thing that needs to happen. All of a sudden since the nuclear tests last year you've seen a change in that strategy from peace and security above economic development to economic development above peace and security. That has led to the following situation: India has now made the assumption that economic development means they will be developed and Pakistan will not because Pakistan's economy is virtually bankrupt anyway, and on top of that, they've made the assumption that the Indians will now be able to develop the economy in such a way that they won't have to pay attention to Kashmir, they can just let it go. The terrorists are basically saying right now that it is absolutely critical for India to understand that we will not allow you to develop economically with the help of the United States or any other western country until you have resolved this problem to the satisfaction of everybody involved.

MARGARET WARNER: So Pranay Gupte, how can and should the Indian government respond? I mean, this stalemate cannot continue forever on that tarmac.

PRANAY GUPTE: Margaret, Mansoor's position endows the terrorists with more intelligence and foresight than I think they're capable of demonstrating. Terrorists are terrorists, all right? You give them a gun, they'll threaten to shoot the guns. I think that the fundamental problem remains that of Kashmir. We could talk until we are blue in the face about economic development and so on. Right now the last few months there were signs that despite the military coup in Pakistan, there were signs that India and Pakistan were willing to get back to the negotiating table. Clearly this incident in which India is suspecting Pakistan of complicity is not going to be conducive to any kind of negotiations.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay. But briefly, do you think the Indian government should or will give in to some of these demands?

PRANAY GUPTE: I don't see how it can. Perhaps there are other channels that we are not familiar with, perhaps there are channels assuring safe passage to these terrorists, but I don't see the Indian government actually saying yes, here are $200 million for you, yes, take and do what you will, because that would set a very dangerous precedent for a very volatile region of the world.

STEPHEN COHEN: Pranay, I agree with you that this is a largely a question that the terrorists are not as professional or as organized as they might seem to be. I'd also say that in modest disagreement, with you, Mansoor, that the United States has not been involved in attempting to deal with regional peace and security issues. There's been no American initiative on Kashmir since 1962. We were briefly involved in 1990, again in 1998, and now we may be involved behind the scenes. I think it's time for a larger American initiative in the region, not specifically to deal with Kashmir, because that's a very, very difficult problem to solve, but to deal with the larger question of India/Pakistan relations. They're two nuclear weapon states, India's the world's largest democracy. It can't manage its relationship with Pakistan and the Pakistanis, I think, have outrageous and wrong views of what they can get out of Kashmir.

PRANAY GUPTE: Also Margaret, if I may jump in here, what Stephen said is so true because that area of the world - the Indian subcontinent -- is a gateway to Asia's globalization and we'd better damn well pay attention to what's going on there.

MARGARET WARNER: Okay, but Mansoor Ijaz, we're still left with 160 plus people on a tarmac. I mean, do you see a military operation resolving this? What do you see?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Well, I don't see that these hijackers are going to give in until... I mean, look, someone who believes that they can earn heaven by killing innocent people, they're not going to let go until they get what they want, and that means there's only two options, you either storm the airplane or you negotiate your way out and give into some of their demands. It's clear to me that the Indians will not give in so there's got to be a military commando operation to get them out of that airplane. It's very simple.

STEPHEN COHEN: But you don't want the Taliban doing this because they don't have the training and the question is will they allow an Indian counter terrorist group to storm the aircraft?

MANSOOR IJAZ: They have said so, Steve. What they have said is that the Indians should be the ones to deal bilaterally with the hijackers. They have said that our position is hands off.

STEPHEN COHEN: And that does seem to imply a role for the Indians should force be necessary.

MANSOOR IJAZ: But this is really where the international community ought to come up with an international response. Terrorism is not acceptable no matter where it is or what the root cause is.

MARGARET WARNER: You're talking about international support for some commando operations?

MANSOOR IJAZ: Exactly. Get the United States, China, and Russia to provide logistical support, tactical support and maybe the Indians and the Pakistanis are the lead forces, if you will, because certainly if any government in the world has influence with the Taliban, it's the Pakistanis.

PRANAY GUPTE: And even very specifically, Margaret, there is a regional organization called the Southeastern Regional Cooperation Council. What are they doing? They are talking about economic dreams, economic ambitions -- they are to get into specifics such as terrorism because terrorism is likely to be the great blight of the new millennium.

MARGARET WARNER: Gentlemen, I'm afraid we have to leave it there but thank you all three very much.

GWEN IFILL: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, regulating Internet drug sales, a conversation with college editors on the 2000 elections, and a millennium essay.

FOCUS - INTERNET DRUGSTORES

GWEN IFILL: Next, a new proposal to regulate how we get prescriptions filled on the Internet. We start with this update from Susan Dentzer of our health unit, a partnership with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

SPOKESPERSON: Just a half a teaspoon, twice daily.

SUSAN DENTZER: Getting a prescription filled at your local pharmacy usually looks

a lot like this...

SPOKESPERSON: And who's the doctor?

SUSAN DENTZER: ...but increasingly, it's apt to look more like this.

(Typing on Keyboard)

SUSAN DENTZER: First there was e-mail, then budding e-commerce -- and now, there's e-pharmacy. Just this year alone, dozens of major pharmacy sites have sprung up on the Internet, with names like Drugstore.com, Soma.com and PlanetRx. They're trying to prove to consumers that getting a prescription filled on-line is more convenient than waiting in line at the local drugstore.

TOM PIGGOTT: I saw it as an exciting opportunity to create essentially a new type of pharmacy.

SUSAN DENTZER: Just under a year ago, thirty-one year-old Tom Piggott founded a Seattle-based Internet pharmacy site. Now owned by drugstore giant CVS, it's called CVS.com. The site affords consumers Internet access to the same products they can get in CVS pharmacies across the U.S.. Consumers simply call up the site, answer questions about their medical history, then enter their prescription and physician's name and phone number.

TOM PIGGOTT: After it is submitted, the pharmacists at CVS.com will verify the information that you have entered, contact your physician if it is a new prescription.

SPOKESMAN: Let me follow up with the doctor and I need to find out

who called this prescription in today.

SUSAN DENTZER: At the customer's behest, the prescription order is then routed to one of two places -- either the customer's local CVS retail pharmacy, or to CVS.com's own state-of-the-art dispensing facility in Ohio. The order then can be packed and shipped from the warehouse directly to the customer. E-pharmacy is still just a fraction of overall pharmacy sales. But it's expected to grab an increasing share of the drugstore business. That's, in part, because the convenience of ordering medications over the Net can be a real plus for consumers. Dr. Jane Henney is commissioner of the federal Food and Drug Administration.

DR. JANE HENNEY: Ordering over the Internet for your refill or your prescription drug that you need I think is very beneficial, particularly for people who have difficulty getting to the drugstore, people who are disabled, who are home-bound, who are elderly, who live in rural communities.

SUSAN DENTZER: But for all the benefits, Henney and other experts say there's also a serious, and even dangerous, downside. Buying already-prescribed drugs over the Internet doesn't appear to pose any safety problems. But health officials are concerned that drugs are also being prescribed over the Internet. Sometimes, legitimate physicians affiliated with the sites are doing the prescribing -- but sometimes not. A recent report published in the New England Journal of Medicine highlighted the problem. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School examined 4000 Internet sites. They found 86 that were selling the well-known impotence drug Viagra without requiring a visit to a physician or, in many instances, even a perfunctory on-line medical evaluation. Congressman Ron Klink, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is alarmed.

REP. RON KLINK: We've talked to people where family pets, or people who had died 20 years ago were given prescriptions for various drugs. And they didn't lie about the information. When it said, 'What's your status?', well, family pet. Sex, neutered. And yet they were able to get Viagra.

SUSAN DENTZER: Phony prescriptions for pets are one thing, says Klink, but the

risks to humans are obviously far greater -- and growing. One reason is a rising number of foreign drug-selling sites, many of which operate out of places like Southeast Asia or Mexico. The sites are selling drugs illegally into the U.S., violating a number of federal and state laws in the process. State officials are also concerned. In Kansas, the attorney general, Carla Stovall, is cracking down on sites that are selling prescription drugs unlawfully to Kansas citizens -- almost always from outside the state's borders. So far, her office has sued six sites for violating state consumer-protection laws and licensing requirements. One of those sites, called Confimed.com, had sold Viagra without a prescription to the 16-year-old son of an employee in Stovall's office.

CARLA STOVALL: What he said was that he wasn't able to have sex and that was sufficient apparently because, even though his age was 16, they sent him the drug and he received it. There is no reason to think that someone younger couldn't have been able to get these drugs too. I think it is a tremendous concern.

SUSAN DENTZER: Last June, Stovall sued Confimed, including its founder, a physician, Dr. Howard Levine. Levine would not appear on camera, so we interviewed Confimed's senior vice president, Eric Thom; at the website's small office in Seattle; he told us Confimed had seriously erred in selling Viagra to the 16 year-old.

ERIC THOM: It was a mistake. We acknowledge that mistake and we respect Kansas's jurisdiction.

SUSAN DENTZER: So what was it, the doctor just didn't notice that he was sixteen?

ERIC THOM: He didn't see it. He literally didn't see it. He made a mistake.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thom says Confimed has since taken steps to make sure such errors don't recur. And in reality, he says, about one in five patients who try to get Viagra from Confimed are turned down. Stovall was still concerned.

CARLA STOVALL: We don't let people today write their own prescription and walk into a pharmacy on Main Street and get that prescription filled. You have to go through your physician. And because we have Internet and it makes things more accessible doesn't mean that those rules should change, and that I should be able to write my own prescription, basically, for a drug that I want to have that my own physician won't give to me.

SUSAN DENTZER: FDA Commissioner Henney agrees.

DR. JANE HENNEY: You're putting your own health, which is really fragile, at risk and that's the issue here.

SUSAN DENTZER: Earlier this year, federal agencies formed a working group to look further into unlawful activity by Internet sites and to try to enforce all applicable state and federal laws. Now, the Clinton administration is proposing to ratchet up federal regulation over the sites. It proposes to increase the FDA's investigative powers and drastically raise the financial penalties for making on-line drug sales without valid prescriptions.

GWEN IFILL: For more on today's proposal, I'm joined now by Susan Dentzer.

So, Susan, it was only inevitable that the federal government was going to have to get involved in this. Exactly what would the announcement that was made today accomplish?

SUSAN DENTZER: In effect, Gwen, what the President is proposing to do is two things-- arm consumers to police the Internet better themselves and to raise the level of armament in the hands of the federal government. As far as consumers go, in effect, what would happen is that the federal government would create a new seal of approval that would be on every web site that was complying with existing state and federal statutes in the realm of drug prescriptions so that as a consumer you would be able to know that you were dealing with a site that was legitimate. In effect what they would do is build on an existing form of seal of approval that's been put together by a group of state pharmacy licensing boards called the VIPPS, the Verified Internet Practice Pharmacy Site. Essentially what the government will do is simply take over that seal of approval and in effect this site would become the federal - in effect the VIPPS seal of approval would be the federal seal of approval. So consumers would know it was a legitimate site. Then in addition to that, the government is proposing that the FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, be granted an additional $10 million in fiscal 2001 to step up its own policing efforts and in particular to acquire new personnel, up to 100 individuals, who would be charged with overseeing illegal sites. That's up from about 10 at present. So it's a dramatic increase. And in addition they'd also be able to access some new technology. Finally, of course, is what we discussed earlier in the piece which is new financial penalties. At this point, according to the federal statute, at best if a site is violating federal law when it comes to drug prescribing, the most the government can do is stock it with a $1,000 penalty. This would increase the penalties to half a million dollars per violation.

GWEN IFILL: But in 50 states there are rules which are being violated everyday now. How would a federal seal of approval make a difference?

SUSAN DENTZER: It would essentially just put consumers on notice that if they were not dealing... Or dealing with a site that did not have the seal of approval, the likelihood was very high that they were dealing with a site that is not in compliance with the law. The states do have these existing licensing requirements, as you point out. The problem is now that as you have Internet commerce taking place between and among states, it's very hard for the state authorities to police that and to enforce that as in the case of in our piece when we had violations of consumers obtaining drugs in Kansas. Usually those sites were not in Kansas, it was difficult for the state attorney general to crack down.

GWEN IFILL: You were talking about the horror stories, the 16-year-old who were able to get Viagra, other people who were able to get prescriptions sight unseen basically by a doctor -- how exactly would this stop that or is this just a way of putting people on notice?

SUSAN DENTZER: It's a way of putting people on notice and essentially beefing up existing ability to enforce the law. If a site knows that the most it can incur now is maybe a $5,000 penalty from the state, maybe at best $1,000 penalty from the federal government, there's obvious incentive given the market out there to keep doing what you're doing illegally. If, in fact, the penalties are going to be much larger, in fact, consumers are going to be put on notice that they ought not to be dealing with you unless tough seal of approval. It will be a lot tougher for the illegal sites to operate.

GWEN IFILL: What's to stop an illegal site from simply moving its operations offshore to the Bahamas or someplace and continuing to sell and not be subject to U.S. law?

SUSAN DENTZER: Nothing is stopping the sites from doing that and, indeed, the FDA is well aware that that could be one unintended consequence of increasing regulation here in the U.S.. The fact remains, though, that there are plenty of sites operating offshore as it is now and one of the great problems with the regulations that are being proposed now that they would do virtually nothing to deal with the growing problem of offshore prescribing. In fact, the FDA is now looking at other means to deal with that which may involve more screening of shipments of illegal drugs into the U.S. -- it may involve more partnering with foreign regulatory agencies to try to prosecute sites that are prescribing illegally, but that's a big problem and it is, indeed, one that might grow bigger as a consequence of this but it's going to be big no matter what happens.

GWEN IFILL: Is there any concern in the Internet industry that this constitutes an unwarranted federal intrusion into free marketing?

SUSAN DENTZER: There hasn't been much comment to that effect yet mainly because people recognize that the federal government has, for more than 50 years, had a very strong role in drug policy, in pharmaceutical drug policy. We decided again more than 50 years ago that drugs had a lot of benefits to them but they also had a lot of risks, that they needed to be certified by the federal government, that there needed to be safety and effectiveness testing before they were brought out and, in fact, that once drugs were prescribed they had to be prescribed by physicians who were licensed in individual states and also sold through licensed pharmacies in individual states. What people are saying now is if these rogue sites continue to operate, you might as well throw that entire federal and state regulatory apparatus in the junk pile because if it can't prevent drugs from being sold illegally and even if some cases unapproved drugs from being sold illegally to people, again, we might not as well have had this marvelous regulatory system that has been created over the last five decades that has worked fairly well in the past.

GWEN IFILL: You just touched on three things that make e-pharmacy shopping so much different from other kinds of Internet shopping and that's that there's a confidentiality concern, a licensing concern, and a liability concern for people who are actually selling these drugs. Is this a slippery slope that we've entered on to, this sort of being able to get prescription medication online?

SUSAN DENTZER: I think it's a boon when it's done illegally as Commissioner Henney pointed out in our taped piece for people who are disabled, who live in rural areas, to be able to go on line, get a legitimate prescription filled and delivered to your door in the space of a day is a fantastic benefit and is probably going to increase overall health of many Americans. The issue here is sites that are not playing by the existing rules, they're not playing by the rules that we've already got in place and the Internet gives them an ability to do that in a much more convenient-- for them-- way and that's really what all of this initiative is targeted at.

GWEN IFILL: And the Internet makes it much more difficult to enforce in any kind of realistic way as well.

SUSAN DENTZER: Absolutely right.

GWEN IFILL: Susan Dentzer, thank you very much.

SUSAN DENTZER: Thanks, Gwen.

EMPHASIS - ELECTION 2000 - CAMPAIGN AGENDA

GWEN IFILL: Next, another in our series of special emphasis discussions about the 2000 election campaign. As our regular viewers know, we've been asking a variety of individuals and groups what issues they want to hear the presidential candidates address. Terence Smith has tonight's.

TERENCE SMITH: Tonight we hear from a group of college student editors: Jamilla Coleman from Spelman College in Atlanta; Chris Edwards from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia; Omar Kelly from Florida A&M University in Tallahassee; and Jennifer Kabbany from San Diego State University in California. Welcome to you all.

Jamila, let me begin with you. When you think about the campaign that is already under way and getting under way, getting ahead of steam, what would you like to hear discussed?

JAMILLA COLEMAN, Spelman College: Well, basically I would like that candidates to say that they do want to stick to some of the basics that have already been discussed in past elections and campaigns, which is keeping abortion legal and as well health care reform. My school, Spelman College, is part of the Atlanta University Center which includes Moorehouse and Clark Atlanta University and Morris Brown College; and Bill Bradley came recently to the School of Medicine as well as his wife, Ernestine Schlant, who used to teach French at Spelman, came to represent her husband. And it's just really important for them to make themselves visible to us and to talk about issues such as health care, because I'm in my last year of school, and pretty soon it's going to be up to me to provide things such as food and shelter and health care for myself. And that's really an issue that I would like to see taken seriously and taken really into consideration by the candidates.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Chris Edwards at Liberty University, what would you like to hear?

CHRIS EDWARDS, Liberty University: Well, Terry, we're from a very conservative campus, and basically a lot of our attention has been focused on the Republican candidates. And what we're really looking to hear is what exactly they think on "Roe Versus Wade," if they do... If they will have a litmus test for judges when they go to the Supreme Court. What are they going to do about safety in schools? Is gun control the answer? A lot more of the stuff that we're focusing on around here and a lot of the stuff that I would like to see are social issues. I think right now economy is doing very well, and so there shouldn't be a whole lot of attention on it. But as far as things like gun control, special rights, hate crimes, different things like that, that's a lot of what I'm looking to see debated about now in this point in the campaign.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Omar Kelly of Florida A&M, what about you?

OMAR KELLY, Florida A&M University: Really I'm interested in affirmative action. Right now there's a proposition and a governor's initiative that are facing us on our next election ballot which will pretty much end affirmative action in university enrollments, in government contracts. Then also other issues that we're interested in hearing the presidential candidates talk about would be Social Security. Right now Social Security is coming out of the checks that I earn, you know, coming out of my wages. However, when I turn 65, there are no guarantees that I'll be able to receive that money back. And also other topics... I'm interested in some of the topics that some of the other editors brought up, but one that I'm especially interested in is Internet regulations. What are some of their ideas and some of the plans that can be implemented, or, you know, are they going to take a hands-off approach?

TERENCE SMITH: Jennifer Kabbany out in San Diego, what's on your agenda?

JENNIFER KABBANY, San Diego State University: My agenda first and foremost is foreign affairs. Basically I would like to hear what the president-elect's stand on China, on North Korea's nuclear proliferation, on Russia and their little civil war, on Iraq, on Europe, on the World Trade Organization. There's a lot of issues surrounding foreign policy right now, and I think those need to be addressed right away.

TERENCE SMITH: Are your hearing any of those, Jennifer, in the early conversations?

JENNIFER KABBANY: You know, not really. I mean, basically I think I just read somewhere that McCain is going to give money towards our military readiness, and that's part of it, but where they stand on China, and North Korea, and Russia, and Iraq, I haven't heard a lot about.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. And Jamila, let me come back to you on some of the points that you raised. You said that Senator Bradley and his wife were there.

JAMILLA COLEMAN: Yes.

TERENCE SMITH: Did they raise some of these issues? Did you feel that you were getting some genuine give and take?

JAMES SCHLESINGER: He did go into depth about health care reform, and why that is so important to me, as I stated before, I'm going to be on my own soon. But also he has a holistic approach to health care, which I believe will affect everybody. If a person does not feel well, or if their children do not feel well, they are less likely to come into work, or they're likely to come into work and not do the best job that I could. I just believe that health affects every aspect of our lives.

TERENCE SMITH: Chris Edwards, you mentioned a number of issues there-- gun control, etc. Why did you pick those out? What is it that you want to hear about one or two of those?

CHRIS EDWARDS: Basically we're looking... And I'm specifically looking to hear a lot from George W. Bush. We're looking a lot at the Republican side of the campaign and Governor Bush has talked a lot about compassionate conservatism and different things like that, and a lot of the issues on the Republican side seem to me to be more of the social issues. So we're just really waiting for the sign they're really starting talking about what they're specifically going to do about different plans. With the recent shooting in Oklahoma, a lot of the debate will come to the forefront about gun control and safety in schools. A lot of folks have gone to the zero tolerance policies where students are... Basically, if they say little at all about... Derogatory or negative, schools are taking a hard-line approach toward them, and some of that may be unfair. And as the debate keeps coming up, obviously the violence in schools hasn't stopped in light of the recent shooting. So I think that's one of the more important issues that's going to face everyone around the country is the safety of their kids in school.

TERENCE SMITH: Mm-hmm. Omar Kelly, you mentioned affirmative action. That's a notion that's under assault all around this country. What is it that you want to hear the candidates spell out?

OMAR KELLY: I'd really like to hear the candidates spell out their individual stance on affirmative action. I know George Bush's stance on affirmative action. He's... You know, he's put in a governor's initiative to end affirmative action in Texas, I believe. And his brother here, who's our governor, has done the same -- Pretty much ending affirmative action on the university level and in government contracts, and I want to know if this is going to be a course of action for all of the United States. Pretty much they've hit some of the biggest states-- California, Texas and Florida-- and I want to see if the same thing is going to be done throughout the U.S. And I basically feel as if I can't vote for a president who will make my journey a lot harder towards success.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Jennifer Kabbany, the election is still... Whatever it is, 11 months away, has this campaign caught the attention of you and people on campus so far?

JENNIFER KABBANY: Well, certainly it's caught my attention. I care a lot about it. But as far as my fellow students, unfortunately I don't get the impression that they're thinking about it at all.

TERENCE SMITH: Well, the polls suggest that much of the public is not really tuned in, but is... Let me ask you why, if that's the case, among the student body. Is it an apathetic attitude towards politics? Is it a lack of a central issue in the campaign that galvanizes people? What do you think it is?

JENNIFER KABBANY: I think it's, you know, our lazy generation. And, I mean, we grow up, we watch TV, we don't read newspapers anymore, and we're just disconnected from what's going on in Washington and what's going on around the world, which is why foreign policy is so important to me. It's disheartening. I don't think one issue is going to bring college students to the table. I think we need an awakening in this country, mass level at all campuses about what is going on and we need to get involved.

TERENCE SMITH: Jamila Coleman, what about the level of interest at Spelman? Is there any discussion of it? Do people talk about it?

JAMILLA COLEMAN: Perhaps in the sphere of the classroom it is discussed, when a student is reminded of it by the curriculum or the teacher brings it up. I wouldn't say there's indifference, but I would say that we won't really start getting excited until the time gets closer and closer. We do have our voter registration drive, the closer that the election gets, but overall I wouldn't call it indifference, I would just call it general ignorance. Not in a negative light, but I think it's also the politicians' responsibility if they do really want to be elected to come and see us. Unfortunately, for better or for worse, not all of us do open a newspaper, but there are certain ways to reach people and our generation is particularly the television generation and the Internet generation. And MTV, for better or for worse, is a very good vehicle for politicians to promote themselves to the younger generation.

TERENCE SMITH: And I suppose for many it's a first presidential vote. Is it for you?

JAMILLA COLEMAN: Yes, it is.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Chris Edwards, you mentioned that there are a lot of Republicans, that it's essentially a conservative campus. Is it going to be an active campus in your expectation?

CHRIS EDWARDS: I think so. More toward when the actual election starts to come up. It was pretty active in the fall here when the conservatives took over Virginia and the control of the legislature there, and so everybody did a lot of activism then, a lot of campaign drops a and lot of talk. And I think you'll see a lot here at Liberty. A lot of the people will kind of pick somebody that they're kind of going for at the start of the fall semester. But unfortunately for that, like everybody else has been saying, a lot of the issues have been discussed and a lot of the primaries have taken place long before that, and so a lot of kids on campus aren't really going to get involved and vote in their primaries back at home or really pay attention to a lot of the issues until the very crucial time right before the election. After that, a lot of times what you're going to get is the parties' platforms from either side and not really what the candidates would really say right now when they're battling amongst each other for nominations. So I think we'll be pretty active, but it's hard telling right now. Everything's kind of quiet and slow and we're just kind of waiting. Maybe some of them will come to campus. We haven't had anybody yet, so if we did, I think you'd see the excitement level pick up a little bit.

TERENCE SMITH: Okay. Omar Kelly, what's the story at Florida A&M?

OMAR KELLY: I really disagree with what one of our panelists said where she was talking about our generation, how we're disassociated from politics because we, you know, we're an uninformed society. I think right now our generation is pretty much more informed in this society that it's perceived of us. We've got television, we've got radio, we've got the Internet, we know all the candidates. We know all the major players. I think the problem with our society is that we're really disheartened by the breed of candidates that are presented in front of us. Me personally, I don't respect, or I won't vote for a career politician. I believe that the best way to... The best kind of politicians are made by those who aren't in this for a career, they're made by those who want to make a difference in their society.

TERENCE SMITH: Jennifer Kabbany, I think that was your comment about your generation. We'll give you the final word.

JENNIFER KABBANY: Okay, thank you. No, I stand by my statement. Regardless of the amount of information, people aren't really looking into it and if they do flick the TV on and they do happen to watch a news program, most of it is a bunch of, you know, liberal junk. So I don't really think they're getting the information that they need, but even if they do, if they pick up the Internet, that's not going to provide the information they need as well. And so I stand by the statement that the students, at least on my campus, don't really even know who's running right now.

TERENCE SMITH: All right. Well, perhaps they'll catch it as it goes along. Thank you all very much.

GWEN IFILL: A reminder that you can participate in our agenda 2000 project by visiting our web site at pbs.Org/newshour, and also by regular mail to: The NewsHour, 3620 South 27th Street, Arlington, Virginia, 22206.

ESSAY - STORIES FOR THE MILLENNIUM

GWEN IFILL: We continue now with our series of essays on the end of the century. Tonight, we hear from Anne Taylor Fleming.

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: This has often been called the American century, but maybe it could be seen as the century of the American woman. That's because what has happened to women in this country, in this century-- their long, tumultuous, exhilarating push for equality in voting booths and bedrooms and boardrooms-- is the great adventure story of the century for its explosive redefinition of all of our public and private lives, changing the contours, the very marrow of those lives. That's not to say that this story didn't happen in other countries, that heroines and agitants didn't abound elsewhere. It did, and they do. But it happened here in a bigger, noisier, mass-push way, ultimately changing everything and everybody in its wake. There are still days when I am exhilarated because I've gone to a female obstetrician, or talked to a female lawyer, or seen footage of some woman trudging up Mount Everest, or watched one of those searing backhands from one of the strong, handsome Williams sisters, a resounding wallop from the brave new world.

SPOKESPERSON: Greta Garbo and Monroe...

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: From Madonna to Mia Hamm, from Madeleine Albright to Mariah Carey, we now expect women to be full-tilt participants, saving the world or strutting their stuff with all the self-possession and chutzpah-- and, yes, sometimes vulgarity-- that they can muster.

SPOKESPEOPLE: They took away my rock and roll...

ANNE TAYLOR FLEMING: And as a perverse dividend of equality, women can now be killed right along with men-- be it on a battlefield or in an electric chair. It was hardly a straight line through the century to this point. Women fought for and finally got the vote in 1920. Then came the 30's, a mixed bag. The Depression told women that what jobs there were belonged to men, but there was also the luminous, larger-than-life public presence of Eleanor Roosevelt. In the 40's, with their men gone to war, women moved into the workforce. But the 50's reaccented domesticity-- Donna Reed in "Father Knows Best." In the early 60's, the introduction of the birth control pill blew apart forever the old world order, helping prompt the explosion of the women's movement in the late 60's, early 70's. The 80's saw a retrenchment, women bumping into glass ceilings at work and fighting with men who didn't want to share power, or chores. In the 90's, more women got into law schools and medical schools and space shuttles. But there were also men behaving badly in nightclubs, and some military schools, and high schools. Of course, not all men did behave badly. The truth is that along the way, a lot of men did try to change, and have. They are partners in this great adventure, their lives ultimately as dramatically altered as those of women, and by their own accounts, for the better. I routinely see men do things now that the World War II era generation men could never do: Hug, hold, kiss-- each other, their wives, their children. At their celebration, Yankee manager Joe Torre didn't give Daryl Strawberry a manly bear hug; he stroked his face and gave him a tender kiss. For all the talk of the crisis of masculinity, I see so much of the opposite, a quiet, daily demonstration of the new kind of maleness -- men nursing their wives through breast cancer or huffing and puffing with them through labor, fathers toting babies on their backs or nurturing their daughters' careers. Even old retro-leach Huge Hefner put his daughter Christie at the "Playboy" helm. In many of our lifetimes, we have witnessed the taking hold of a simple, yet profoundly revolutionary idea: That men and women are more alike than not, made of essentially the same stuff, and entitled to a full and equal range of experiences and emotions, jobs and opportunities, privileges and protections. One need only look at the re-restricted women of Afghanistan, the rape victims in the Balkans, the genitally mutilated girls in parts of Africa to register how deeply disturbing this idea of equality is, and how tenuous. And of course in this country there are still too many women being hurt, hit, harassed, too many women below the poverty line, too many older women stigmatized for their wrinkles, too many younger ones driven into anorexia by new beauty ideals of thinness. No, it's far from perfect and far from over, our great adventure, but what an adventure it has been. I'm Anne Taylor Fleming.

RECAP

GWEN IFILL: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday: The hijackers holding an Indian Airlines jet demanded $200 million and the release of 35 Kashmiri militants. President Clinton called for new federal oversight of Internet drug sales. And Seattle canceled its publicly-sponsored New Year's Eve celebration because of public safety concerns. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening. I'm Gwen Ifill. Thank you and good night.