Hostage Policy Review, Defense Authorization

ANNOUNCER: This is the Washington Week Webcast Extra.

GWEN IFILL: Hello, and welcome.

I'm Gwen Ifill.

We're ready to pick up online where we left off on air.

I'm joined by Dan Balz of The Washington Post, Carrie Johnson of NPR, Chuck Babington of

the Associated Press and Yochi Dreazen of Foreign Policy magazine.

We start with a little preview of something we've been waiting for, the expected release

next week of the administration's review of its hostage policy.

Yochi, you've been watching that.

What are we waiting for, exactly, and what do we expect?

YOCHI DREAZEN: We're waiting for - well, one question is, will they roll it out

publicly or privately?

A lot of the families want it to be public.

They still feel profound anger at the White House, feeling that not enough was done to

bring back their loved ones.

And the main question that this will be looked at to see if it addresses is the question

of ransoms.

Most European governments openly pay ransoms to get back their people.

The Germans do it.

The French do it.

The Italians do it.

The U.S.

emphatically does not do it, and in one case told a family that if a family tried to

raise money on its own they would go to jail.

So that's the kind of central question we'll all be looking at to see if it's addressed

or how.

My hunch is that it won't be addressed in any concrete way, or if it is it'll be, well,

we're kind of going to keep the policy the way that it is.

But that - at the core of all of this is this question of ransom: Can you pay money to

get back a missing American or should you pay money?

GWEN IFILL: I can't imagine that the administration policy will change.

YOCHI DREAZEN: Yeah, I can't, either, especially because then the argument becomes

immediately, well, by doing that you're funding the Islamic State.

GWEN IFILL: Well, exactly.

After a while you're in a - between a rock and a hard place on that one.

Chuck, I want to ask you about one of these issues - one of these things that goes

through on Capitol Hill that has completely different interpretations depending on where

you sit.

In this case it sounds obscure, but it was the defense authorization bill.

And the president maybe thinking - in position to veto it?

What's going on?

CHARLES BABINGTON: Yeah, Gwen, it's over funding it, how to fund it, and this all grows

out of the whole - this whole sequestration thing.

GWEN IFILL: Ah, that favorite - my favorite word.

I can't believe you said it.

(Laughter.)

CHARLES BABINGTON: I'll try to simplify it.

So there's been a long-running quarrel between the two parties for years now about how

to - you know, how much to spend and how to fund it.

And the Republicans in particular have said, you've got to pay for things; you can't

just keep putting it on the credit card.

And yet, when it comes to - so now they've had these limits in place that keep kind of

ratcheting down spending, and a lot of Republicans, and Democrats for that matter, are

concerned that we're ratcheting down on the military too much.

So the Republicans have said, well, we can - we can bring up the spending for the

military, but we'll pay for it by - this money that we set aside for wars that we really

didn't expect, we'll kind of put that money in there.

And the Democrats are saying, no, no, that's a gimmick.

You know, if you're going to pay for it, if you're going to do it, do it up front

because what they don't like is the idea that they'll find a gimmicky way to pay for

military spending and not a gimmicky way to pay for domestic spending.

GWEN IFILL: So basically this allows the Republicans to say that the Democrats are

anti-military and for the Democrats to say the Republicans are blowing up the budget.

CHARLES BABINGTON: Exactly, yeah.

GWEN IFILL: Oh, that's nice.

CHARLES BABINGTON: You have a problem with that?

I mean -

GWEN IFILL: I don't have a problem with it.

(Laughter.)

I just wanted to be clear about what the disagreement is.

CHARLES BABINGTON: You've got it exactly right.

GWEN IFILL: OK.

(Laughs.)

I want to go to Carrie.

There were two things that happened on your beat.

First I want to ask about the serious one and then about the lighter one - to me,

lighter.

One is a Medicare fraud bust.

There was a big announcement at the Justice Department.

CARRIE JOHNSON: The biggest Medicare fraud bust in U.S.

history, according to the attorney general, the FBI director and the head of HHS.

They wound up doing a sting operation or a series of operations rolled out over three

days in 17 cities, arresting hundreds of people - including, Gwen, 46 medical

professionals - doctors, nurses - taking advantage in large part of Medicare Part D and

other schemes.

And the government says that so much money is being wasted on fraud in the health care

system that they really want to send a message that they're on the case.

The problem, though, Gwen, is that the default is to pay these claims, and so it's hard

to get the money back once it's gone out of the federal coffers.

GWEN IFILL: When we hear about fraud and fraud in health care, this is not what we

envision, people who qualify for Medicare as being the perpetrators.

CARRIE JOHNSON: Absolutely not.

And when you've got medical professionals engaged in these schemes and, in fact, being

the essential or central part of the scheme, the government has a real problem there and

needs to crack down on it.

GWEN IFILL: OK.

So now the Justice Department is also getting a reputation as being - waging a war

against sports, this time a potential hacking investigation in baseball.

CARRIE JOHNSON: Corporate espionage involving, allegedly, the St.

Louis Cardinals: lower- to mid-level people in the front office allegedly hacking into a

proprietary computer system operated by their rival, the Houston Astros.

And, Gwen, the electronic trail, according to federal officials, led back to a home with

ties to the St. Louis Cardinals.

So whoever was engaged in these shenanigans did not do a very good job of covering their

tracks.

The problem here is that when you're talking about computer intrusions, there's a law on

the books called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and it carries five- or 10-year

penalties - criminal penalties.

Not clear to me, though, whether the feds are going to decide this is a matter best

handled by baseball disciplinary officials.

GWEN IFILL: Well, and I - can I just say the Astros, are they really somebody you want

to take down?

I don't know that they're - I don't know baseball that well, but are they that -

CHARLES BABINGTON: They've gone from being bad to being very good.

GWEN IFILL: Oh.

CHARLES BABINGTON: Yeah.

And the guy that's made them good is the guy that used to run the Cardinals.

GWEN IFILL: Well, so thank you for clearing that up for me.

I was so confused.

CHARLES BABINGTON: I'm happy to do that.

(Laughter.)

GWEN IFILL: OK.

One more question, and this is something we may have overlooked in the main program,

which is that there's another presidential candidate who announced this week, and his

name is Donald J. Trump.

DAN BALZ: Donald J. Trump - GWEN IFILL: Yes.

DAN BALZ: - as he was introduced, yes.

Donald Trump has flirted with this idea for many years, and this week he said he is an

actual candidate.

He hasn't quite yet done all the paperwork necessary to become a real candidate.

GWEN IFILL: Oh, paperwork, paperwork.

DAN BALZ: A real candidate, and he has a little time for that, so we'll see how long he

stays in.

But right now he's in, and he's going to be a disruptive force.

I mean, we know what he is like.

He's beyond egocentric.

He's very brash.

He's inflammatory.

Some of the things he said on his opening day about illegal immigrants being rapists and

drug dealers and killers and worse was, quite frankly, shameful, and Hillary Clinton

called him out on it later in the week and said this kind of language ought not to be

tolerated.

He is right on the edge of qualifying to be in the first presidential debate among the

Republicans in August.

GWEN IFILL: It's from name recognition.

DAN BALZ: Well, yes.

He's right there.

Fox News has said we will take the top 10 people from the five most recent national

polls, and he's right there - you know, not by a healthy margin, but he could be on that

stage.

He's taken very direct shots at Jeb Bush and others in the race, and he's going to cause

them some problems.

GWEN IFILL: And him being on the stage means there are people who are governors, there

are people who have long track records of public service who would not make that

threshold.

DAN BALZ: That's right.

There are - there are people who Republicans would regard as more serious or credible

candidates who could be kept out while he's in.

And in some ways it's the party's worst nightmare.

I mean -

GWEN IFILL: Is there anything they're willing to do about that or is there anything

they can do about that?

DAN BALZ: There's not much they can do.

I mean, the rules - the rules, as established by the sponsors of the debates, are such

that, you know, he's likely - he could well be in.

GWEN IFILL: Get your popcorn, folks.

This is going to be the part of the campaign that people are going to look and go, what

are we doing?

We'll see how it goes.

Before I go, I want to wish a happy Father's Day to everybody in the crew here, but also

everybody at the table where - who have - we have children at this table from the age 11

weeks to 36 years.

Won't say who has what.

(Laughter.)

CHARLES BABINGTON: Have to guess.

GWEN IFILL: But I just know that there is a - there is a lovely muffin waiting for you

all Sunday morning.

Happy Father's Day.

And thank you, everybody.

We'll see you on the next Washington Week Webcast Extra.