foundations courtesy page. it's may 24,rning, and 2013 on this friday before memorial day. several federal agencies in washington, d.c. are closed to mandatory furloughs put in place in response to the spending cuts known as sequestration. most members of congress have already left washington and had of the memorial day recess and the white house, president obama is coming up a national security speech yesterday at the national defense university. in that address, he offered up a new plan for moving low-level detainee's out of the u.s. prison in guantanamo bay, cuba, and prosecuting some detainee's

on u.s. soil. as we break down that plant this morning, we want to hear your thoughts on the renewed push for action at guantanamo. give us a call, the lines are on your screen. you can catch up with us and all your favorite social media sites. a very good friday morning to you. let's take you first to an article from " the new york times," talking about this new policy the president talked about on guantanamo bay.

i want to take you to a little bit of the president's speech yesterday from the national defense university. [video clip] again call once

congress to lift the restrictions on detainee transfers from gitmo. [applause] have asked the department of defense to designate a site in the united states where we can hold military commissions. i am appointing a new senior envoy at the state department and defense department whose sole responsibility will be to achieve the transfer of detainee's to third countries. i am lifting the moratorium on detainee transfers to yemen so we can review them on a case by case basis. to the greatest extent possible, we will transfer detainee's who have been cleared to go to other countries. >> [indiscernible] bringropriate, we will terrorists to justice in our courts and our military justice system. we will insist that judicial review be available for every detainee. was president obama

yesterday at the national defense university. we will be taking your thoughts and comments on that for the first 45 minutes here on "the washington journal." the new york times." otheris a plan for detainee's perhaps not being transferred from guantanamo bay.

this is a story from "the washington post."

of opposition already to that planned the president announced yesterday day -- i want to take you for the the republican senator from georgia talking about his concerns about the president's plan for guantanamo. [video clip] >> i have bad one to advocate maintaining guantanamo but my reason is simple -- if we were to capture some of the benghazi areorists who we know today

running free, what are we going to do with them? we have no place to take them. are we going to bring them into an article 3 court? we trust the libyans to prosecute? one simplet question. the other question is we got 166 of the meanest and nastiest killers in the world located at guantanamo bay today. what the president has said is that we will move toward closure and that means the release of presumably 86 of those individuals that have already been authorized for transfer but they were not transferred because a number of them were going to yemen, 56 of them are yemeni. following the 2009 christmas day bomber incident, all transfers to yemen were stopped because we did not have confidence -- their government could handle them. guess what? between december, 2009 and today, has yemen shown any

indication that they are more capable of looking after those individuals? absolutely not. if we were to transfer those individuals to yemen, it would be like turning them loose. host: that was saxby chambliss yesterday after the president's speech. some reaction to the plan is coming in on our facebook page. we are taking your thoughts and comments this morning and the phone lines are open. look at this graphic from today's "the washington post."

we will show you a bit of that graphic as we take phone calls. first, cindy from wyoming, on our democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning to you. i am just amazed that we have not close this facility before. it should never, ever have been opened. i am fully behind the president's attempts to try to

close it again. i think he will run into opposition and not quite sure why. we have a number of those folks down there who are on hunger strike and some are being forced fed. cannots no reason they be transferred to the country's that they are supposed to be. set upas agreed to reintegration plans. i think this should go forward as quickly as possible. thank you. host: thank-you for the call. she brings up thunderstrike that is happening in guantanamo bay. here are some statistics from "the wall street journal." gregory on our independent line from michigan, good morning.

caller: good morning. i appreciate this opportunity. i have been in prison. i have been broke. and i have had little bit of money. i know this -- i used to work a minimum wage jobs most of my life. when i get my little $100 paycheck, i had to pay my rent, i had to buy some food or this or that a. to watch my money. toht now, america, we need watch your money. isse terrorist people that in guantanamo bay, they are allah andy believe in the 72 virgins and all that crap. think closing

guantanamo bay are transferring these detainee's will save the u.s. money? $900,000 per about year per detainee at guantanamo. caller: that is a ridiculous amount of money to blow on those people. we should not transfer them. we should execute them. they want to go to their allah, send them - a few more statistics on guantanamo bay -- back to our republican line, victoria is from florida, good

morning. cal caller: good morning. against closing of guantanamo. host: why is that? caller: these are militants. fought against them and we will let them fly like little dog's back come? you've got to be kidding me. my people have shed their blood for this nation to be free, have liberty, and justice for all. let me tell you -- days made -- these militants in guantanamo bay, let them not eat and let them go like the previous caller said back to their allah because that's where

they seem to be the happiest. twitter - the black squares are noting the number of prisoners from each country that have been cleared for release already. the black dots indicate a high value detainee. some more comments from yesterday's press conference by republicans after the president's speech -- john mccain talked about his opinion -- [video clip] >> first of all, i have always advocated the closure of the prison at guantanamo bay for a

variety of reasons which i will not discuss right now since we have three other of my colleagues to speak. we always wanted a plan. in 2009, senator gramm and i embed white house council sat down and tried to articulate and come up with an agreement. we never got an agreement. the administration never come up with a coherent or cohesive plan to close guantanamo bay. that is why it is still open today. host: that was john mccain after the president's speech yesterday. we are taking your calls and thoughts on the president's plan on guantanamo bay yesterday. the president talked about a wide range of policies at that speech yesterday. "the wall street journal" headline notes -- also talking about the drone

issue and his thoughts on the justice department going after reporters and doing their jobs. we will talk about some of those issues in our next segment of "the washington journal." we are focusing on just his plan for guantanamo bay right now. let's go back to our republic in line, from california, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for cspan. i am getting sick and tired of the bleeding heart liberals whether it be the successful republicans in this country making too much money and paying their fair share of taxes that is not good enough for the prisoners at guantanamo not getting enough cheese on their pizza. this is not a nazi prison camp. what happened in the past was wrong, extremely wrong, but you do not close a prison in the united states because of a couple of bad apples.

institution and that's what it is for. this congress strike is on going down there is bringing some attention to the de chinese -- this hunger strike is going on down there -- what do you think about that? caller: i think they are acting like children. they are prisoners. if you don't want to eat, don't eat. you are in a military prison for one reason only because you are a combatant against the united states of america and that's why you are there. as long as we have boots on the ground and we have men and women in harm's way, we have to have these facilities. the women from wyoming, you are not a set national security adviser, with all due respect. the call.k you for from our democratic line, carol is waiting from ohio.

caller: i'm glad to be on c- span. i sat here and listened to some onehe tweets you had been person said he never did the plan five years ago. host: you are talking about president obama's promises? caller: yes, who was stopping that? the party? becauserepublicans, they stop everything. let's not say he did not keep his promise. the republicans adopted by filibustering. they would not let him go through a federal court system because it was not good enough, they said. they were so mean. we've got people in that federal prison that are really mean, too, and we managed to get them in there and we are keeping them in there and nobody has escaped from one of these prisons.

host: let me read you this tweet - what are your thoughts on that? think the i republicans would try to stop everything he tries to do. that's what they have done for five years. they stopped everything. the economy would be a lot better if they had not stopped everything. host: thank you for the call. here is the lead editorial in today's "new york times."

from "the wall street journal." we are taking your thoughts and tweets and facebook posts. greg is next from arkansas. i don't think they

should close guantanamo. i think they should keep it open. boston, thatn would be a good place for them to end up right there. all the people that it should stay open, they should wake up because these terrorists are not going away. look what happened in london. host: what do you think about moving some of these details to to u.s. soil for prosecution? caller: if you move them to u.s. and they joined up, they could cause real problems. host: what do you mean join up? caller: look at what happened in

london. they kill that soldier with a knife. it's crazy. let's go to loyd from columbia, missouri, independent line. let me get your take on the idea of bringing some of these detainee's to u.s. soil for prosecution. would you support that? caller: i believe the liberals want al qaeda free because the liberals are al-qaeda. host: talk about the president's plans for guantanamo bay. caller: i believe the plan is to have terrorists here in the united states so that they can have an attack here. host: we will go to yolanda from baton rouge, louisiana, on our democrat line. caller: i believe that guantanamo bay should be close. you have been sequestered or

things that would benefit america is not being benefited because congress keeps saying cut spending close. guantanamo bay. that would be a saving of money. then you have people who are in prison who have not even been convicted of a crime. we don't do that in america. doing iting to start to anyone we want to pick up. think about the americans always going to other countries. back to bite america. then they would have the option to pick up any body and threw them in prison and and just say we will hold them. when you do something, you have to be careful because it will come back to bite you. president obama is right. close guantanamo bay.

you might have seen from our first clip that we showed of the president, that he was interrupted during that speech. here is a story on the activist who heckled the president's gesture day -- you can see her there in the video from the national defense university yesterday.

if you want to learn more about appeared andn, she our program back on march 5. you can check that video out in ara-c spent video library. back to our phones on this issue. erica is next from prince frederick, maryland. what are your thoughts on the plans for guantanamo? caller: i listened to the whole speech yesterday and i did not

vote for obama but as a republican and as a direct veteran, i support the president's speech. with detainee's when i was in iraq. part of the strategy over there to releasee point, them and then let it become an issue for the iraqis to handle. that is a microcosm of what we've got here on an international level. i think it should be done on a case by case basis. i like what senator mccain said with regard to guantanamo as well. i think this is a bipartisan issue that both sides should come to agreement on. i support all the ideas that the president brought out in his speech. we should bring some of these

guys to the super max presence here. no one has ever escape from those. case by case, like the president said, he is taking a similar policies to similar bush and referred to this being a long war and this will not be over. this is the new cold war of the next century. vigilant andmain we have to deal with these issues carefully and surgically. there is a way to do that without committing a large effort like we did in iraq and afghanistan that are difficult to sustain given our economic situation. host: thank you for the call. he brings up some of the issues the president will have with members of congress and here is

one more of those members, senator kelly ayotte of new hampshire. [video clip] >> if you look at what we did in the defense of operation -- authorization in 2013, which brought a bill that would prohibit transfers from guantanamo and a permanent basis to the united states. that was then changed in conference to one year. it has been a consistent policy of this body and, in part, i share with senator chambliss use of guantanamo where we captured terrorists that need to be interrogated to make sure we get maximum intelligence. that is key and that remains a very important key issue for us. also, there is no plan from this president for an alternative. that is where things stand in congress and i think they are likely to stand there with the absence of a cohesive plan that

protects americans. host: we are taking your thoughts and comments and tweets this morning. we will keep taking your calls and tweets but let me take you through some of the other headlines --

that is from today's " the new york times." one other story out of the white house --

one other story in one of the

issues that is very high profile in washington, d.c. -- the irs issue and targeting of conservative groups. here is that line from "the washington times." there is a photograph of lois lerner leaving the house oversight and government reform committee hearing earlier this week when she pled the fifth. back to the telephones and the

president's plan guantanamo bay. julia's is next from baltimore, maryland, on our independent line. caller: good morning. for the question american public. when you start treating people -- you can: terrorists -- the that they have never been charged, they cannot have a trial -- it goes against everything we stand for as americans. the people to keep calling and saying they don't want this on american soil -- we put them in guantanamo bay because we felt as though they were an immediate danger to americans. one had given a trial in a federal prison which no one has escaped from and give them a trial and send back to their country? vietnam just tell our soldiers with no trial and gave them torture.

we are no different from any other country out here unless we set the tone that this is not how americans to stand. this is not how we will stand or what we fight for. we fight for freedom and liberty, not to just grab anybody off the street that we think is a terrorist and throw them in jail without trial. host: are you satisfied with the plan the president laid out yesterday? caller: i think he needs to go farther and faster. i would like to see the 100 + tail needs before his last run, i would like to see those detainee's gone and guantanamo close. i'm a former united states marine and i cannot imagine myself being put in a foreign land without a trial, without enemyosecution as an combatant. if you think i'm a bad guy, then try me as a bad guy but -- or

send me back home. host: 90 for the call. he was talking about detainee's that had been cleared for transfer and those still being held. there is 166 detainee's now held in guantanamo bay. 86 have been cleared for transfer to including 56, the vast majority of those from yemen. that is the chart from "the washington post." from our republican line, key west, florida. caller: good morning to you. proud republican from florida. our president has absolutely no military experience and i feel a does that have the credentials to make such decisions of what is going on in guantanamo bay. a lot of the democrats and independents are squawking about trials. this is not an issue of whether

they need to be brought to america. this is an issue for the justice system and whether due process is being followed according to the constitution. many people say that they would not want to be held in another country for a long period of time without having been tried. this is not like going on vacation. these people are criminals, terrorists of the highest caliber that applauded -- that have plotted on the tax on america with foreign allies. orse are not boy scouts mischievous children around the corner. these are terrorists who spend their entire lives based on religious principles to destroy america. we need a bipartisan military agreement. we need these people to come together with military officials

and generals who have been there or people will have been prisoners of war, not a president who has no military background. president obama is parading his buddies around like he is running for class president. his staff has failed over and over and he simply goes up with this stupid spark on his face all the time. on his face. host: thank you for the call. a few other stories i want to get to this morning to let you know about this from "politico."

with that story, a new gallup poll this morning with findings on how federal agencies argued around the country --

you can see those changes in the chart accompanying this story from gallup. we've got a few minutes left to take your calls on the president's plan for guantanamo bay. william is up next on our democratic line from elizabeth city, north carolina, good morning. see if youd morning, agree with me and don't cut me off off i believe the bleeding keep guantanamo open -- if we can keep guantanamo opened, water board them and we will find out what happened with 9/11 -- rockford, ill.,

on our republican line. caller: i believe we need to close guantanamo bay. with all the enemy combatants that the liberals believe are such good people and deserve fair trial, why don't we just give them fighter pilot's 16s ores and give them f- give the irs licenses and see how they take care of us? host: want to show you pictures from some front pages from washington newspapers --

there is a picture on the front page of "the seattle times." i want to go back to the phones for this issue of guantanamo bay, danielle is waiting from chattanooga tennessee on our democratic line. caller: good morning. if the president feels like they need to close it, go ahead and close it. the president cannot get anything through with the american people don't back him. to have some better things in place. just because they are detainee's

are terrorists doesn't mean they don't have rights like we do. if we close it, there's more money the american people don't have to throw down the giant hole. are not being tried so what is the purpose of them being there? from north and next branford, conn, independent line. caller: i agree with the plan of the president closing guantanamo bay. it is a lot of money wasted. i would think you put these gentlemen on a jet fly into a mosque in the middle east and that would sure everybody. -- and they would kill everybody. host: this is from "usa today."

you can read more on that story in today's "usa today."

that will do for this first segment of [video clip] ." if you have a policy issue featured on gues "washington journal">> and as an e-mail. up next, we'll talk to andrea prasow to discuss the president's counterterrorism policy and later, a senior tax policy analyst at the heritage foundation will discuss apple's appearance on capitol hill this week defending their use of the ireland tax codes. >> the most fundamental difference between < right is that both look at the economic ladder. those on the left seat to reach

down and physically take people and move them up the economic ladder. that is almost always driven by noble intentions and yet it never works. evernly way anyone has climbed the economic ladder is to pull himself or herself up one run at a time. >> nearly all of you will experience failure, some of you crushing failure, that you will learn from and learn from. and yes, the all the better for it. once you have failure, that is the only good option. is to take some and from it. very few of you will never recover from our failures and, statistically speaking, between two and five of you will spend some part of your life in prison. [laughter] --spring, cspan visit is visits college campuses and you hear stories and advice for a

new graduating class. tonight at 8:00 eastern, saturday at 8:30 -- >> after president grover cleveland loses his bid for reelection in 1888, his wife tells the staff -- >> wanted to take care of all the furniture and ornaments and do not get them lost our broken because i want to find everything in the same order when we return. >> they won the election of 1892. the life of francis cleveland live monday night at 9:00 eastern on cspan. journal"continue as --

host: continue our discussion of president obama speech yesterday at the national defense university and we are joined by andrea prasow, near counter-terrorism counsel for a human rights watch. what is your reaction to the speech? what did the president do with this address? >> i think he set out an impressive vision. real question is what kind of action he will follow through with. host: what didn't he do? guest: he set a lot about guantanamo but he did not set forth the real plan to close it. part of his plan to move forward with guantanamo meant continuing some of the most problematic parts of it, continuing the indefinite detention without trial, and moving the completely discredited military commissions from guantanamo bay to the u.s. which makes very little difference. change of a zip code

and not a change of policy. the military commissions are problematic and they are unfair. present obama played an important role in making them -- fighting procedural protections. they still don't meet international standards. they are also incredibly un tested. the appellate courts have not had a chance to review this. in the two convictions obtained dc rial, last fall, the appellate court overturned both of them. aboutare serious concerns whether any of verdicts will really stand in the future. the people who are victims of the attacks these men are accused of have already been waiting 12 years for justice and to wait several more years for a trout to be completed years after that for an appellate process and have to go to another truck, i don't think that does than justice. host: andrea prasow works for

human rights watch and if you have a question, our phone lines are ( open. what is human rights watch? guest: it is an international organization to promote human rights around the world. we do work in 90 countries or were in the u.s. is a component of our role to monitor government complies with international norms around the world. we comment on the u.s. government complies likely comment on china. workeduesyou previously with the office of military commissions and represented some of these detainees and guantanamo. tell us about that effort. guest: i worked as a civilian and military public defender's office. version on an earlier of the military commission back

in 2006. i worked on one case of a man who was convicted of providing material support for a terrorism last. fall, the d.c. circuit said that charge should never have been brought. they vacated his conviction. in addition to watching from afar, i have firsthand experience practicing and as bad as they may be on paper, they are far worse in practice. far did the president advanced things it today? how different is his policy today that was yesterday? guest: what comes to military commissions, the policy has not changed. he should transfer as many detainee's as possible to federal civilian courts and released the last but he committed continuing in with military commissions. it is not clear if he was just talking about military commissions for the men currently in guantanamo. there is some suggestion that

his language may be trying to implement a military commission inside the u.s. that to be used for future detainee's. it may be that he wants to move the non-afghans currently u.s.ned in bagram into the for military commission. it is not clear whether it is status quo or worse that have now. the president can do an important thing with guantanamo and he lifted a self-imposed ban on transferring yemeni detainee's back to their home country. that is a huge step forward. this is what the key issues were what matters is what the president will do. saying he lifted it but will he actually transfer them? host: how long should that process take? will this be months, weeks, years? guest: definitely months. i hope it will happen faster. men in guantanamo

bay, 86 of those were recommended for transfer by an interagency task force set up by president obama of four years ago. three years ago, 86 of these years ago were identified for transfer either to their home countries, 56 of those men are from yemen. these men have known for three years that they were supposed to go home. host: what shut down those transfers? nigerian man9, the that a tentative blow up an airliner over detroit, the underwear bomber -- after he was interrogating, evidence came that he had training with of anwar al-aulaqi. was an american citizen and a target of eight u.s. drug strike and was killed by a drone strike.

their threats from yemen and the shutdown transfers. that meant is that there are yemeni man we have had in guantanamo for eight + years, they have nothing to do with a dangerous man we believe was in yemen but we won't send them home. from twitter -- guest: no one is more deserving of human rights than anyone else. that is the structure of individual rights that the u.s. and the global community have committed to. largely since world war two. people said so many people have been killed and there has been suffering that we need a structure that recognizes the value of human life, basic standards of human dignity that apply to everyone even people accused of terrorism. host: andrea prasow, confined

her work at hew.org. our phone lines are open and york -- and a few questions or comments, we are talking about not only guantanamo bay but the president's policy on drones. can you talk about what he did there? guest: it is good and bad. i think he provided more transparency, more of a clear explanation on the target killing policy than we have seen in the past but, it is still not entirely clear what the policy is. one thing the president said is that the document was confidential. it was provided to congress but not the american people. a fact sheet outlined what are some of those policy guidelines

in that framework. an accurateit is summary of what's in the policy but the policies classified. the american public and international committee don't really know what standards the government is intending to apply. one of the most important things about drone strikes is in addition to the legal standards, it is what happens on the ground. will thise strikes, continue to be a part of the u.s. package of response to threats? guest: the president thinks so. host: do you think it should be? guest: drones as an instrument of war are not problematic. they can be more precise than other weapons. in conflictengaged and with whom. if not, there are circumstances

where there can be a self- defense action but the president has not been very clear about whether the u.s. is engaged in non-conflict in pakistan or yemen or somalia. i think we have to have more clarity before we can determine whether they are lawful or not. host: this is from "usa today" -- do you agree with that? guest: one of the most important parts of the president's speech

was when he talked about what the u.s. and all the other nations should do to protect terrorism and he talked about the expensive foreign aid that many are reluctant to support and how to build up strength in emerging democracies, how can the u.s. and other western nations respond to the arabs spring. is that by supporting democracy? that's where i think the important focus needs to be. it may be that the u.s. decides to have non-conflict. it may be that someone's life is truly at risk and the nation use -- needs to use legal force like a police officer can shoot a hostage taker as he is holding a again -- a gun to a hostage. these things may happen but to say that the u.s. must kill people because they are dangerous people misses the point of the president's speech. i think is bad policy. host: are taking your calls as we discussed the president's

speech yesterday, with andrea .rasow from human rights watch caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i am a veteran and a retired federal law enforcement officer. i want to say that the day that we started torturing detainees is the day we stop being a great country. even the people on the extreme right no and there heights that is true. we can become a great country again but we will have to steer our way back to what we know is right. i have a couple of questions that pertain to guantanamo. i listened to the president's speech and i think he our ticket sales -- articulate to the plan. he divided the detainee's into three groups they could be returned to their countries of origin, those could be tried in the courts and there was a third category -- some difficulty trying them because of a lack of

evidence and our inability to make a good case against them. probablyking this is alluding to the fact that you cannot use concessions that were brought forth by means of torture. if you could comment on that, what other categories he might be talking about. what are the tough cases? prior to my retirement from federal government, i was assigned for a year-and-a-half, office for the administrative review. i was not a senior official but i did fly down to guantanamo twice on the secretary of the navy's aircraft. those aircraft are used frequently to fly members of congress down to guantanamo so that they can go on the tour and say that they have been there. i wonder if they are calculating the cost of flying members of congress down there in g5

aircraft. it is very expensive. the president was very vague, perhaps his most bay, when he was talking about those detainees. originally they identified 48 detainees who they said could not be tried but were allegedly too dangerous to release. although it may have expanded in light of the appeals court decision. there may be people that the government previously thought they could try and military commission but cannot. 46-plus people. what i found most troubling about the speech as he noted the tremendous problem that this is, a legacy problem, that they would not be in this position but for the budget ministration, but he did not provide a road map and say that the u.s. will stop all the people immediately without trial.

hopefully that is what he means in the end, but that means that people will be held for 12-plus years without charge or trial. i am skeptical about the idea that there is sufficient evidence to hold them, that that will hold up in court. the evidence obtained by coercion is not admissible in the u.s. courts, not just because u.s. courts do not one law enforcement officers to use torture and corrigan, but also because that evidence is considered unreliable. so why would that evidence be good enough for the government to hold someone indefinitely but not good enough for a u.s. judge to accept? in terms of the cost, one of the interesting things about the congressional delegations is that the members of congress never meet the detainees. i would be happy, having spent millions of dollars, to go down to guantanamo to talk to these men who are starving themselves to death because they're so desperate, these men who are

strapped down into a restraint chair and have a tube fed up their nose and down to their stomach twice a day. that does not happen. members of congress see the soccer fields, the 3000-calories a day that they prepare for the men, and they come back and say, it looks safe and humane to me. host: on twitter, let's not forget these prisoners are international murderers, not uniform salters that the government can barter and release. a question from robert on drone policy. if innocent bystanders are killed in u.s. drone strikes, can even be held accountable in the icc? guest: that is a tricky one. the international criminal court. the u.s. is not a signatory to the international criminal court, so u.s. personnel can be tried there, all they do --

although they do support some prosecutions. the killing of civilians, lawful access of four, is tragic, but not necessarily a war crime. the pecans on how many civilians are killed. the targeting of civilians is a war crime. outside of thens conflict, just because a country themes them to be dangerous, is also a crime, maybe a war crime. for example, were a u.s. soldier to targets civilians in afghanistan, they should be under a court martial, on a lot of that country. host: has been talk about the president's drug policy, we should play it a bit of the president talking about that at the national defense university yesterday.

he laid out some of his ideas for growing usage beyond the notification of congress. option as virtues, in theory, but poses difficulties in practice. the establishment of a special court to evaluate and authorizing legal action has the benefit of bringing a third branch of government into the process, but raises serious constitutional issues of the presidential and judicial authorities. another idea that has been suggested, the establishment of an independent oversight board in the executive branch avoids those problems but may introduce a layer of bureaucracy in the national security titian making without inspiring but additional confidence in the public in the process. but despite these challenges, i look forward to actively engage in congress, to explore these and other options for increased oversight.

we are getting a few tweaks in as we are talking with andrea prasow on this topic on the use of drones. on twitter, i cannot imagine any action more likely to create terrorism flowback and occupations, wars and drones killing families, can you? could russia, flying drones over the u.s. in search of chechen rebels? guest: those are really important comment. although i am a lawyer -- all would like to talk about a lot -- when it comes to the targeted killing program and the impact of the policy, that is some of the most important areas of focus. we have reports out of pakistan and yemen, where these strikes are taking place, there is a huge anti-american resentment,

sometimes of the whole country. why has there country appeared to acquiesce to their citizen being killed by another nation? what about sovereignty? what does the u.s. do when it engages in that sort of political dialogue with pakistan, and pakistan does not give them permission to engage in targeted killings, or the military says one thing and the government another. the impact on the ground in terms of the sentiment on the united states -- whether that means more recruitment for terrorists or general anti- american sentiment or reluctance on allies to cooperate on intelligence sharing or other areas, that is problematic. definitely a serious concern. from john is on the phone niagara falls, new york. independent line. i believe drone strikes are necessary, but i believe there should be some kind of

backup system, like ice on the ground, to make sure they are targeting the right target. prisoners, i believe there is no evidence against them. we are not being americans if we do not send them back to their homeland. have an unusual thing here. i have 13.5 years in and out of prison. i was with the terrorists who hijacked the plane over buffalo, i lived with him for two years. our federal prison systems will hold any kind of terrorist. they are going nowhere. the fascist right should not be afraid that they can get out or .urt anybody else . have pictures in the house

host: could you talk about the concern of members of congress about bringing these detainees to u.s. soil, fear that they might get out or what could happen? guest: this is pure politics. some members do not guantanamo detainees in the u.s. purely for political reasons. after president obama took office, there were a group of men in guantanamo, the remaining, who are chinese muslims. china considers them a threat. the u.s. knew, from day one, that they cannot go back to china. they would be tortured, imprisoned without trial, so there was never a plan to send them back. also, they knew that these men had never engaged in any hostility against the u.s., nor intended to. these were purely people involved in a fight unrelated to the u.s. and a fedor run the judge said that these men are innocent and should not be sent

to guantanamo. i do not have the power to order them to go to anywhere else, but the military does. the president wanted to bring them into virginia and members of congress got wind of this than there was a huge political outcry. the idea that the u.s. wanted to let terrorists free on our soil, even though they have been freed by a federal judge. that is what made congress enact on a ban on transporting detainees. that is what has made closing guantanamo is a difficult. other countries are run the world said, why should we take these men, when the u.s. will not let a single person they're holding into the u.s.? host: on twitter, how many times have you visited and seen the prisoners? caller: i have been there -- guest: i have been there 36 times in three different capacities. i was a private attorney

representing attorneys in their habeas cases, where they were able to challenge their detention in federal court. as we discussed, civilian defense attorney in the military commission system. now the human rights watch, i'm not enter the military commissions. we are given clearance to watch the proceedings. in this capacity, we are not allowed to interact with detainees, talk with them, find out what their true concerns are. but in my previous job, i represented them, so, hours and hours of talking to them. erie,laurie is next in pennsylvania. republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. in light of the recent attack in england and switzerland, i would like to know a short answer, as concise, but plans does the u.s. have in dealing with a worldwide jihad going on right now?

guest: the president set forth an important plan in his speech, which is the way to do with terrorism is not to just try to kill every terrorist in the world. it is to do with the underlying issues that prompt people to want to engage in terrorism. host: we talked about the concern of detainees being brought to u.s. soil. can you talk about detainees being released to other countries, fear they may attack the united states at some point down the road if they are lost track of by their home countries? guest: the pentagon puts out what they call the recidivism rate. this is something people talk about when it comes to present. u s prisons have a high recidivism rate. it is important to keep in mind, first, the pentagon has never fully disclosed the basis for its statistics. in the past, they said speaking

out about one's experience in guantanamo, and being critical of the united states, would put someone on that list. they disavow that now, but that is incredibly troubling. the second issue, the idea that someone is a recidivist presumes they did something in the first place. host: what is the right now? guest: they say around 21%, but we do not know who these men are. i will not say that no one has committed a terrorist attack that has spent time in guantanamo. statistically, it is probably true. but that is not really the question. there are 166 people at guantanamo. even if everyone of them wanted to kill western allies at some point, there are far more dangerous people in the world than these men, and you have to balance that against a number of people who are hostile to the the the state because of guantanamo, the number of terrorists that groups are able

to recruit because they can say, look at guantanamo, look at president obama, who keep some promising he will close this again and again, even though he has not. host: on twitter, should drones be subject to international convention? guest: when they are used just as a weapon of war, need to follow the same rules -- the follow theneed to se same rules. for ae actually called ban on the bonnet of killer robots, some kind of international consensus, fully autonomous weapons, where no one is involved in executing a killed. that is not something the international community should be doing. when it comes to a drone or missile aircraft, there does not need to be international consensus. there needs to be consensus that nations can onldo that when it

is lawful. host: the president yesterday seemed to be pushing for drones to be handled by the department of defense and not the cia, at least moving more into the department of defense. on twitter, how abusive must have been to take the drug away from the cia? i would like a full accounting of that. guest: i would like a full account of everyone that has ever been killed by a drone strike. at least moving some of the controlled to the department of defense from the cia may be an important move. human rights watch has long called for that move. a fundamental component of international law, the international legal system, is transparency. if a nation is killing people, the public needs to understand who and why. the cia is a super organization that does not disclose what it is doing.

the administration has never declared formally that the cia is it involved in targeted killings. moving into the military provide more opportunity for transparency and more opportunity for transparency. this is from "the washington times" pointing out there have been 307 drone strikes under the obama administration, 49 under the bush administration, the year with the most strikes in 2010. so far this year, 12. back to the phones, charles from st. petersburg, florida. democratic line. about: i know you spoke the chinese prisoners. they were apprehended in afghanistan, i believe, and they have nothing to do with terrorism and should be returned to their country. where do these men go for justice?

how can they obtain justice? guest: that question applied not only to those in guantanamo, those released, and many victims of abuse of u.s. counterterrorism policies, the people that were tortured at the hands of u.s. government. the u.s. had made it impossible for them to get justice here. surprising of the aspects of the administration's response to counter-terrorism, to claim that none of these cases can move forward in the u.s., at the beginning whether someone was tortured by the government would expose national secrets. that is not something the president talked about, but that is key. i would love to see an immediate shift in that policy and the government recognizing that the u.s. engaged in torture, as the president said in his speech, admitting that the not make america less safe, it makes it more safe, and sends a message

to other countries that the u.s. can handle an airing of the truth, and only then can we ensure that those actions never happen again. newark, newfrom jersey. independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. happy mother's day. politicsen observing extremely deeply since 2002. i am an independent, so i'm on both sides of the fence. my aunt of asian of what president obama has said was that drones can be .arefully used

no. 2, he said guantanamo bay should have never been opened in the first place. the fourthion reading of the prisoners. host: did the president say it should have never been opened in the first place? guest: yes, this was my favorite part of the speech. he said it never should have been opened. the audience burst out in applause. it was hard to tell from the television viewers, but i think the applause was started by medea benjamin, a co-founder of code pink. everyone agreed that they thought guantanamo should never have been opened. this was the transformative moment. if the u.s. is going to move forward with any positive developments from that speech, it is because of that statement. this should have never happened in the first place. how do we move forward to make

sure this never happens again? host: bond is in indiana. republican line. caller: let's remember president obama had control of everything the first two years. also, he wants to pass the shield law to protect journalists from him. what kind of a thing is that? i do not know how many members human rights has, but maybe they ought to take each one of these wonderful people from guantanamo into their homes? host: could talk about the reporter shield law? is not my area of expertise, but i am troubled by reporters to expose policy could potentially be prosecuted for that. secret prisons, where detainees were tortured for years, this was exposed by the press.

breivik journalists were prepared to dig down deeply into the rumors they heard, on the run reporting, until the american people and the rest of theserld heard about horrific crime that the bush administration was committing. that is important, essential in a free and open democracy. william in morely, michigan. good morning. curious, how many gitmo,rs have died since the president we had before that the? if any of those were found innocent after the fact, and if we have done anything for reparations to try to make it right. guest: the most compelling and tragic case is from a man who

committed suicide last year in guantanamo after several attempts to run the time. he was cleared multiple times to be returned home to yemen, and beginning in 2006, by the bush administration. in the end, his desperation and suffering drove him to what appears to be suicide. host: did you meet him personally? guest: i did not, but i spoke to his attorney. they have been working tirelessly for over a decade. i think it is important to stop and think about people like him, these men who are on hunger strikes. over 100 are on hunger strike. what must it take for them to say they are prepared to die in guantanamo because they think they will never go home? he was told time and again the u.s. government decided they could send him home and then with not. that is emblematic of the great tragedy of guantanamo. host: were any found innocent

after words, what the u.s. government did perhaps in those cases? great the u.s. has a trick of never calling anyone innocent. muslims were the only ones who were found to not have any basis for being detained. there were a few cases when detainees were able to file habeas cases, were able to count their detention in court, ofething the bush ministration resisted. they were put in guantanamo in the first place because a court would come here their case. some of the district judges determined that these men need to be released. unfortunately, the appeals court has adopted this very rigorous definition of who is held in on theamo, which relies government evidence, presumes the u.s. presents something to the court, it is reliable. this is one of the areas where president obama has continued.

it is his justice department urged the appeals court to keep detaining these men, even some of whom the administration has wanted to release themselves. to andreare speaking prasow, senior counter-terrorism counsel at human rights watch. from rockville, maryland. independent line. caller: good morning. i think, above all, the government owes us security. people arrested on the battlefield, and maybe some people would say that is damning enough. the fbi could not find any evidence of terrorist affiliations with the brothers. i am haunted by that poor english soldier being cut to death on the street. i am haunted by it. it could happen here. the government cannot do enough

to protect us. there is another thing that is also important to me. we are very high and mighty about our american values. i am looking around and i do not see it. i was watching c-span this week, and congressman wall from virginia was on, talking about the very bad human rights record of the obama administration, which really floored me. i thought liberals were supposed the humanitarian. he spoke about the prisons, federal prisons, and the terrible rates that go on there. ericid, for four years, holder was dragging his heels and was not doing anything about .hat kind that awful thing if you want to consider the torture that goes on in the american hospitals, one out of

the four people, seniors going in -- host: andrea prasow? guest: represented what is actually the one that led the charge against bringing the chinese muslims into america. he said they were too dangerous in the u.s.ed the u.s. death of has the problematic record in terms of human rights, but it is in part to remember, one of the claims that president obama has made time and again, is that there is a false choice between national security and u.s. ideals. i absolutely believe that. we have seen that time and guantanamo, abu ghraib. what they believe is safe is actually causing other terrorist to attack the u.s.. that does not mean the u.s.

should change its current policies, but it means these ideas that the u.s. should be abusive, violate the law or push the boundaries of law and order to protect americans, can actually produce a lot of blow back and make america less safe. host: an individual as to talk about the torture issue pitting the before the bush administration. he said president clinton started extraordinary rendition. could you talk about that? guest: extra rendition is the idea of taking an individual from one country to another country. at times, usually called rendition to justice, taking someone to be prosecuted. the bush andnder ministration was rendition 4 porker. people were taken to egypt, libya, with the intention or knowledge that they may be tortured. the u.s. government thought, perhaps coming interrogators in

this country would be able to extract more information. this is incredibly dangerous, when the talk about the false choice, that is ok for the best to violate the fundamental prohibition on torture by asking another country to do it. not only is that a violation of international and domestic law, it did not protect america. an incredibly powerful example is someone in the u.s. sent to egypt to be tortured, it was in those interrogations that he claimed what we now know to be a false one between al-qaeda and iraq, which was used in part as the basis for the u.s. invasion in iraq. host: mark is from north dakota. republican line. caller: i think a better strategy and other than drones and gitmo it would be to focus on the global financing of al qaeda and its affiliates. unfortunately, both the bush and obama administration have turned

a blind eye to the fact that saudi arabia is the ideological and financial safe haven. are of the family same religious sect. there is compelling evidence that saudi charities' fund extremists schools promoting violence against of west all over the world, north africa, yemen, pakistan, afghanistan, even the north caucuses region where the boston bombers were from. congressional hearing that demonstrate this. you can find them at standupforyourrights.me. whether it is going after financiers to cut bank accounts, building up democracies in emerging countries, supporting civil society, it has to be done in a

way that respects civil rights, human rights. that means having a way for people to challenge their designation as reporters of terrorism. his point on saudi arabia? guest: that is not something i can comment on. host: andrea prasow, we appreciate you coming on. coming up, we will speak to curtis dubay to speak about apple's appearance on capitol hill this week defending their use of ireland's's tax codes. later we will be taking a look at social and economic changes in rural america. we will be right back. >> what has happened in the senate most notably for three

consecutive years, we did not even consider a budget resolution. i served on the committee for eight years. other than the year's budget resolution has been passed, but three consecutive years -- this is the fourth -- but the house and senate have not reconcile the differences. this is supposed to be but done by april 15. converse is required to pass a budget and complete that -- congress is required to pass a budget and complete the process by april 15. it is no wonder everything has gotten so distorted and out of whack because of sequestration's, the automatic cuts. $16.80 trillion national debt, we are in uncharted territory, without question. republican senator olympia snowe on fixing the congressional gridlock.

part of a three-day holiday weekend coming this weekend on "book tv." groverr president cleveland loses his re-election attempt, his wife tells the staff -- take good care of the furniture and ornaments in the house. i want to find everything just as it is now when we come back four years from today. >> and they did return, winning the election of 1952. live on monday night at 8:00 eastern -- 9:00 eastern. host: earlier this week, apple ceo tim cook was called before congress to testify about the company's overseas tax practices. curtis dubay of the heritage foundation is with us now to discuss the hearing. thet, explain to us what

leaders of the senate permit affairs committee were so upset about in the hearing. it turns out it has nothing to do with its u.s. practices. they pay their taxes. they cut a deal with the irish government cannot pay taxes on income it turns and shifts to ireland. ireland had the lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world. even without low rate, they cut a special deal with>> and they d avoided income earned overseas, not earned in the u.s., but over fraud -- but abroad. that they put the money apple paid little or no taxes at around $7.4 billion? how did they do it? how were they able to avoid paying taxes on that? guest: it was a deal they cut with the irish government.

this year should have taken place in the irish parliament or in other european countries because they are the one being treated -- cheated out of taxes. this is income earned on apple devices sold to foreign customers. people in the u.k., other european countries. to the appleown store here in georgetown and by an ipad, and they ship the money overseas. that would be illegal tax evasion. this is the foreign-earned income at apple is sheltering in ireland host. host: apple has a group of companies holding on to the money that is made from the products over in europe and asia. at what point could that money be taxed by the nine states? guest: the u.s. has a worldwide tax system. that means we are going to tax

apple and on the income it earned in every country. every ally country works on a territorial system -- every other company works on a territorial system. this was an investigatory committee. because we are the only country that has that tax system, that gives the pretext for the committee to have the hearing because they want to create the perception that apple is somehow gained u.s. taxes one that is the case. there are people in the senate who do not want to allow to defer their foreign income. yes, you owe taxes on it, but not until you bring that money back to the u.s. host: curtis dubay is a senior tax analyst at the heritage foundation.

our phone lines are open if you have questions about this hearing with apple's cdo. ceo. if you are outside the u.s., 202-585-3883. the heritage foundation, one is in? guest: we are a conservative think-tank working on conservative policies solutions and talk but as issues. we cover a broad range of issues. am thetax policy, i person. we covered economic from national security. host: how is heritage funded? guest: mostly by donations from individuals. host: did apple do anything

wrong according to u.s. law, how were they able to keep this money from being taxed? guest: no, that suggestion was not even broached in the hearing. what this is all about is creating a pretext -- there is everyone on both sides of the from that we need reform the window we taxed multinational corporations. there is no doubt about that, but there is a device on how we do that. there are those who support territorial taxes, only income earned within the border. others want to take our worldwide system and make it even stronger, make businesses pay for an income as soon as it is earned. have agreement that we -- of how we do that. this was creating the perception that apple will doing something illegal but this has nothing to do with u.s. tax law, u.s.

income, it was all about what they do abroad. host: what was ireland getting out of this? question.t is a good they already have the lowest tax rate in the developed world. they cut more jobs apparently, that was the deal. awful would create more jobs than they would forgo the small amount of tax and they would go on income earned. host: want to show you a lot .rom that hearing this week this is carl levin defending his decision to bring the executives in to explain their tax practices. company, but great no company should be able to determine how much it is going to pay in taxes, how many profits they would keep offshore, how they will bring them back home using all sorts of gimmicks to avoid paying taxes that should be paid to this country.

they make use of this country, they use our law system, the have the right to lobby here, and they to lobby plenty, but they cannot have a right to decide how many taxes they will pay and to whom they will pay them. avoiding paying taxes in this country is not right. talking with curtis dubay, the heritage foundation senior tax policy analyst. questions coming in on twitter. the apple ceod it voluntarily testify? willingly.ame any company that is called on will come. they are not breaking any laws, not any u.s. laws. host: is that what tim cook said to members of congress? guest: i believe he did. and that is true.

and that clip of center 11 is instructive because he was making it seem like apple was avoiding taxes, but again, this is income that is earned on the sale of apple products to foreign countries. it is just not the case that this is income earned from selling and ipad in san francisco, and then that money is shifted over to ireland. we have laws in place to prevent that. did not hear anybody 6 -- accuse tim cook and apple of breaking the law. if they were accusing couple of do that, and they have something to hide, they would not be willing to testify in an open hearing in front of congress. the phones are open. we go first to bill from fort lauderdale, fla., independent line. caller: good morning.

i think everyone is missing the certainby focusing on tax justifications, that this is something that is perfectly .egal ireland is desperate for any business right now because they have been put through the meat .rinder with their banking when states, charter corporations -- when albert inc., there are certain things act soey are obliged to much attention has been taken away from the bigger picture. back or theing right to be a corporation, they have extracted jobs, finding ways to cut taxes, but this is

all very positive corporate behavior did it because this is the way things are done. it is just about the bottom line and there is no medical attention paid to what obligation apple has for america and americans. i will take my answer of the air. guest: what is interesting is we have an ally when it comes to the corporate tax code in the u.s. we have the highest corporate tax code in the developed world. if we got our rate down in line with other countries -- we are at 35%. the average for other countries is around 20%. if we got that in line, this would not be a problem because other companies would not owe us taxes in the u.s. because we are and a liar in our tax rate and because of the world system, this becomes an issue. multinational businesses over

the residual between the u.s. rate and the international rate. if apple earns income in ireland and pays 12.5%, they owe the difference between that and 35%. because of that, multinational businesses owe taxes on all the income they earn abroad. we showed you some numbers on the corporate tax rate in 2010 during this time of the committee's investigation into apple's tax payment, showing the u.s. corporate tax rate as one of the highest in the world, down to the very lowest at the call 0.5% in ireland, lower than switzerland, turkey, poland. guest: just last year, japan cut

their rate, now we are the highest in the world. paid $6ple said they billion in taxes last year. from did that money come that they paid taxes on, u.s. sales? guest: income taxes they pay here in the u.s. is based on sales here in the u.s. they are painfully the tax on net income they earn from those sales. attacks -- paying fully the tax that they earned from those sales. guest: on the last point, it is

not avoiding american taxes, this is a tax code internationally. apple found a way to use our response to minimize their tax liability. shareholders of apple are probably pretty happy about that because that means a bigger return on their shares. however, that could happen, that toer companies say, we need maximize our -- minimize our tax liability overseas as well. however, ireland could be in trouble with other european countries because they cut a special deal with apple and i do not think other european countries will be happy with that. it is those other countries that lose out on tax revenue. d.c. dave in washington, democratic line. caller: you said the united states operates under a

worldwide tax system, correct? guest: right. caller: therefore, apple is a u.s. corporation. that means if we sell and i've outsidephone, or itouch of the past, since we operate under world one system, those taxes should be going back to the united states as a world one corp. underldwide world one system. you may advocate for something different but it contradicts with u.s. law and tax policy, a worldwide system. please comment. guest: there is no doubt that we have that system and businesses should comply with it. we also have a policy called the

furled which means apple and other multinational companies pay the income on taxes earned abroad. when that money is repatriated back to the u.s. they do not have to pay that money until that money is brought back. apple is not doing anything illegal by not bringing the money back. all the multinational corporation will keep that money abroad, probably indefinitely, because of our very high rate, and they will not pay that extra tax. they will keep that money indefinitely because none of their competitors have to pay that extra tax. to allow them to keep it abroad indefinitely, so yes, they have to pay taxes on it if they bring it back, but they are doing nothing by keeping it off shore. host: from "the washington writes aboutiller

this issue. your take on that? guest: on that part, i agree wholeheartedly. you have a lot of talent people spending a lot of time to make

sure they are minimizing tax liability. they could be doing much more productive and activity. i agree, 100%. probably the most i have ever agreed with someone from the center for american progress. there is agreement on both sides that we need to reform the system. the question is how we do that. the chairman of the house, ways, and means committee had been put together a plan, and one of the most thorough things that he has put at is a waiver form to the huge national tax system. the senate finance committee is now looking at the plan and studying it, other options for international taxes as well. president obama said he would be interested in corporate international tax reform. we are such an outcry when it comes to our tax rate in the world wide system, there is no doubt we have to have some kind of reform. host: we are talking about the

hearing this week that apple's ceo tim cook appeared at. here is a picture. tim cook,rl levin and testifying on tuesday. back to the phones. york, bill, new republican line. caller: good morning. wouldn't repatriation of overseas income possibly lead to u.s.verse affect of the companies becoming foreign companies to escape, setting up overseas so they do not have to bother with all this?

jack lew, omment is george soros, bloomberg all have incomes, a charitable foundations. they escape hundreds of billions in taxes. nobody talks about that. treasurer secretary, tim rattner also did not file for some of his workers -- tim geithner also did not file for some of his workers. fort: one of the options fixing our system is to strengthen the worldwide regime, cutting down on referrals. he cannot defer your foreign profits indefinitely. the foreign tax credit keeps businesses from paying double tax on net income. theuse of the higher rate,

always 0 a residual here in the u.s. if to cut back on the foreign tax credit and strengthen the system, you would have businesses that necessarily moving out of the u.s. -- there are very strong anti-inversion rules. boeing cannot all the sudden say we are going to be a cayman islands company overnight. but they can put themselves up for sale. anheuser-busch put itself up for sale, and it was bought by inbev. that is what you would see if we went that way, strengthening about what system. you would see a lot of famous american companies putting themselves up for sale and being bought by foreign companies because that would wipe out that enormous liability that exists on the overseas profit and the valley would go up commensurately. host: what is a repatriation holiday?

guest: that is something we have seen in 2004, to the and 5, where u.s. businesses can bring back -- 2005, where u.s. businesses can bring back their income with a lower tax rate window. we think the argument in favor of that is flawed, that it would spur the economy. it ends up being a portfolio shift for investors. their share prices reflect that overseas. when it is paid back as dividends, it is a portfolio shift. shiftld much rather see a to a territorial system that looks forward, moving from impediment to investment. host: that repatriation holiday to talk about, a study by the bureau of economic research, according to "the new york times" found --

tim cook was pushing for one of these holidays in his hearing, correct? multinational corporations are in favor of this holiday. this is on tax liability that has already been booked. we want a prospective change, things that will encourage investment and job growth and wage growth. we had a bill moving through on reform efforts. apple and other companies have been pushing hard for the holiday. we have written against another holiday because the arguments in favor just cannot stand up. how was appleer, treated in the hearing? writes, is of the way apple

was treated indicative of the current style of rule by demonization and klaus warfare? guest: it would have made more sense if apple had testified in front of the house ways and means committee, where they could've gone to the root of the problem as to why apple is keeping those profits offshore, how the u.s. worldwide system for its investment here in the u.s., hurts job growth. we have got more out of that than trying to shame at all for doing nothing wrong. host: hope, ky. democratic line. would like to say, curtis, the reason our corporate taxes should be higher than everyone else's in the world is because we send our military all over the world to protect these corporations.

when we say we are protecting american interests, that is big business. we invade other countries so that we can set up businesses. everyone in the world knows that. for them to get out of paying their taxes -- our military spends more than the rest of the world combined, and why? to protect corporate interest. everyone in the world knows it. i will listen to your response for that. apple is not getting out of paying u.s. tax liability. that is a totally foreign issue. this is it to the they cut with island to reduce its irish taxes. the company that should be upset on the foreign companies that taxes becauseon of all that money earned abroad is shifted into ireland and other countries miss out on that income. again, this is not so much a u.s. issue, but it highlights

the issue that we need to reform our corporate tax system and the way that we treat multinationals, because of the way they are treated becca at home. ireland byitter, has letting any the membership obligation by the e.u. because of the deal? guest: i do not know if they have violated any laws, but they will be in hot water. other european countries do not like they're very low corporate tax rate. in the same way that we are and out liar because we are too high compared to other developed countries, apple is an out liar because there's so much lower. other countries do not like that. there is a huge incentive for apple and other multinationals to move their money to ireland. they do that to keep that low rate and other preferential treatment that they get from

locating in ireland. there will be renewed pressure and it will take a lot of heat for monday european countries who have been pushing for a long time for our land to change its system. host: a story by reuters today appearing in "the baltimore sun ." guest: i am not surprised. this is something ireland offered to help create job growth in ireland when it was release struggling. it was the irish tiger for a long time before the world wide financial meltdown. part of the factor that generated that strong growth was their favorable tax environment.

waiting in is mclean, virginia. republican line. caller: thank you for bringing up this issue, and i want to bring up a side note. i pay attention to c-span, listen to it as much as i can, this into the hearings as much as i can, because i do not trust what is written in the newspapers or brought up on tv anymore. senatorhow that clip of levin and his opinion of what apple was doing. his rant about what they were doing, the money they were taking out of the united states was totally wrong because, as the gentleman says from the foundation, we were talking about money that is not generated, sales not generated here in the u.s., but senator levin got his start them by

making it seem as though he was looking out for the lodi and the american taxpayers who were being cheated by apple. what was the media doing? -- senator levin rarely i have a master's degree. i have been in the professional world since i've been working and when i look and see how backwards we are with our tax. have you ever tried to deal with the internal revenue service. i have. i have to quit my job so i can take care of issues that have been brought up with my family and the small bses that we run. it's ridiculous. complex an overly tax code. that's why i thinkou