jam-packed session at 6:00 a. look at her, she's out of control! holy smokes! to the showdown over guantanamo. a new battle erupting on capitol hill over shutting it down and moving those detainees here. there's a push for it. and someone says yesterday's verdict for the boston bomber may help make the case for it. are they right? hi everyone. i'm brenda butner. this is "bulls and bears." here they are, hadley heath and richard faller welcome, everybody. they say the verdict proves our prisons can handle the gitmo

detainees, but gary k. says no way. gary? >> look i think there's a big difference. the man sentenced, the animal sentenced to death yesterday committed a crime here. most of these, if not all of these gitmo people committed crimes elsewhere. for me gitmo does several things. a, it sends a message to these terrorists. it does not cut costs any bit whatsoever. and it really sends the message to the terrorists that you're not going to be in a very nice place going forward. i say you keep it open. >> richard, why should we close it? >> well, we should close it for a couple things. number one, the constitution. every person whether you are a foreigner, an american you're an immigrant, you have the right to habeas corpus and our constitution has created perfect justice system. and we saw that in boston where this individual was sentenced to death. and i think our justices can try all these individuals. no need to keep them -- why would we take away american values when dealing with the

individuals? that's what sort of is amiss to me. and that's the problem with guantanamo bay overall. >> hadley do we really want these terrorists who have been there for years, to come to our shores and what congress member is going to want them to be in a prison in his or her district? >> well, exactly. i'm sympathetic to the criticisms of what happens at guantanamo bay. it's worth looking into absolutely but bringing the detainees to u.s. soil raises a whole bunch of legal problems logistical problems and something the majority of americans don't want to see with gitmo closed. >> john you say it comes down to dollars and cents? >> i do but i don't understand why we are talking about the problems at guantanamo bay and saying people deserve certain rights. our drone policy doesn't give anyone rights. we don't have a right to process, we have -- we have killed american citizens overseas without a trial, but

yet somehow if we get these people in the battlefield, it's okay just to kill them indiscriminately? but if you put them in guantanamo bay somehow that's bad? i'm seeing mixed messages all over the place. this to me is about cost. it's a matter of we're not talking about giving the guys access to lawyers, we're not talking about trying these guys in the united states any more than we tried khalid sheikh mohommad. we moved him to the united states to a super max prison like the once in florence colorado and we put them there. it's so much cheaper. the same thing gets done but the cost is a fraction of what it is in at guantanamo bay. >> i agree with the latter the cost is cheaper. than bringing them here to american for the prisons. but if we truly want to stand up to terrorism and say america is a city on the a hill we have to make sure we have the values once we detain the individuals. if we kill them via drone strike which the president has

done a couple of times, then the individuals are dead. if we capture them and bring them to u.s. soil which guantanamo bay is then they deserve the rights of anybody on u.s. soil. thus -- >> look, it's okay to kill people indris krim gnatiscriminately but once they are here on our soil they have our rights? >> costs do not go down if you shut down guantanamo. we went from more than 700 prisoners down to a little over 100. we have the same amount of personnel and they will just be shifted elsewhere. the other part of the equation we keep hearing, well, guantanamo causes people to become terrorists. i don't think so. terrorists want to be terrorists on their own. i see no reason why this has to be closed. >> gary b. you disagree on the cost issue, don't you?

>> i do. i don't quite understand the math as much as i respect gary k. gitmo is costing $2.8 million per prison per year. the average maximum security prison costs about $85,000 per prisoner per year. even if you just add in all the extra security with gitmo, you another, whatever over $2 million per prisoner. i think i have a good solution. i understand richard's points yes, we should keep american values. i also understand john's points. you know have they made a good point? well what congressman or senator would not want gitmo in their backyard? well we made that same argument though when we were developing nuclear reactors. who would not want one in their backyard? then the congressmen figured out, wait a second there's a couple thousand jobs being created there. i'm not in favor of the government creating jobs. so why don't we just replicate what we have with gitmo in some

desolate part of north dakota or alaska or something like that. we create jobs and save money. we put these prisoners where they were where they should be on american soil. >> well, north dakota and alaska they are citizens there and don't necessarily want the terrorists. but hadley how do you respond to gary b.'s comments? >> first of all, when it comes to cost i don't know if we can make an apples comparison to the maximum facilities here and detainees of guantanamo bay. moving them to u.s. doesn't equate to $85,000, and i agree we may not make up the difference bun at the end of the day cost consideration is one thing, national security is another. what is moving these detainees to the united states mean for national security. >> do we seriously think there's going to be a massive prison break? why don't we put them on alcatraz, find an aisland off

the coast of south carolina. i think we can solve the security problem. >> but did we ever expect that there was going to be a 9/11? i mean there's no telling what these terrorists might be able to do gary k. >> well, here's the thing -- >> let me just let gary k. respond to that. >> let me just say this, for all this talk about bringing all the prisoners here i would like to see all the politicians in washington, d.c. bring all these prisoners to maybe, restin virginia or right around washington, d.c. you're not going to see that happen because they don't want it to happen. they are going to send it to places outside of where they are. so look i just think this is a lot of talk. >> that's not true. that's not true. because we try the terrorists right here in washington, d.c. in the federal courts in alexandria. we convicted him and now he's in jail. our justice system works. and let's make it work and close down guantanamo bay. >> according to a fox news poll a majority of americans believe that a terrorist could be living

in their own backyard. gary k.? >> well, americans are speaking out. i think they make a lot of sense. they agree with gary k. >> and john how do you respond to that? >> well, look what gary b. is saying is absolutely correct. there are a lot of places that do want this. florence colorado, when they got the maximum prison the people of the county raised money to buy the ground because they knew they would get 1,000 jobs. you open this to bidding with places with a bad economy, they are going to want some prison like this. and we're not talking about giving them rights i think trying a guy like khalid sheikh mohommad was a stupid idea costing tens of millions of dollars. try them at the super max, they don't get any more rights than guantanamo bay. it just saves a fortune. >> hadley? >> i think at the end of the day this is not just a question of national security in terms of a prison break. that's not necessarily what i'm suggesting. i'm suggesting this proposal from senator john mccain and others to move the detainees to u.s. soil is a first step on the way to closing guantanamo for

good. and so we have to think about in terms of the pros and cons yes, we can reform the policies that we use at guantanamo bay but moving the prisoners here doesn't solve the problem of how to legally treat them. >> okay. great debate. thank you, guys. and cavuto on business in about 20 minutes from now. hey, neil what do you got? >> hey, brenda. the white house blaming fox news for holding back on the war on poverty. but do the facts show that could be a very poor excuse? plus highway to the danger drone. another near collision and a white house lockdown sparking calls to shut them all down. we'll see you soon. thank you, neil. can't wait. but up here first, with speed playing a major role in this deadly derailment do we need to put the brakes on all hie he suffered

a concussion in the crash. now back to "bulls and bears." speed. a major factor in that deadly amtrak derailment. and while this wasn't a high-speed train, it is raising questions over the push for all these high-speed rail projects across america. get this nearly 35 states already receiving a combined $10 billion from the federal government to build them. now, hadley you say this crash shows why we should be very cautious about throwing tax dollars at high-speed rails across america, why? >> i'm not against high-speed rail and think it can be a safe

and effective form of transportation. but i'm against government-run high-speed rail because the government doesn't do a very good job determining what is profitable and what is cost effective. this should be an arena where the private sector can lead and we don't see a lot of investors jumping in to build high-speed rail projects. occasionally you do but most of the time you don't because they don't see the profit potential there. >> and richard, that's a good point. the government really is the boss with this. but lots of people are going to be paying for these projects who will never take a ride on a high-speed train. why -- is it worth it in should taxpayers be paying for this? >> it is worth it. our friends overseas are committed to this. every billion dollar you spend on transportation you create 34,000 jobs. number two, you get folks quicker, faster and safer. and beyond that number three, it's a great way to make sure that america stays the number one world in the leading economy.

i think it's a good ideal all around. sadly, we can't get washington politics to get together and really try to create high-speed rail in america. we're the only developed country in the world without real high-speed rails. it's about time we get it. >> gary b. use amtrak as an example of government-run train systems. >> exactly. here i thought richard and i had kind of a kumbaya moment and were bonding, but that's all fallen by the waist side now with his defense of rail. i'm kind of with hadley on this and will give examples. i think richard is completely wrong. if you include subsidies that amtrak gets plus the high cost of their ticket they are four times as expensive as airline travel. you look at how many people really want amtrak. the average person drives 15,000 miles a year. they are on amtrak 20,000 miles a year. as far as this whole energy and green stuff, amtrak alone pollutes more than buses.

it's about equal with cars driving inner city. hold on one second hold on. to get back to hadley's point, if there is a market for it as richard says then it should be developed by private enterprise. that's how the rail system in europe started, richard. we can do it again over here. >> it's based on government investment. >> richard, i'm sorry, we have to move along. john do we really need high-speed rail? >> in certain places it would be beneficial but across the country, absolutely not. we already have high-speed rail. if you want to get from denver to las vegas or dallas to phoenix, you take southwest airlines. that's a pretty quick service and it's pretty cheap. the problem is we do need infrastructure spending. and you can't trust politicians with money. 37% of recovery act went to unfunded pension liabilities. up to 40% of the gas tax goes to special projects. you cannot trust politicians with money. and that is the problem with our infrastructure spending. >> gary k. where do you weigh

in on this? >> california first said $30 billion. now it's $68 billion. which basically means $100 billion. they already admitted they need taxpayer subsidies up to a billion dollars a year and it always falls on the taxpayer. if you notice as said you don't see private companies jumping all over this because they know it's a money loser. think the big dig in massachusetts. it was supposed to cost $3 billion and ended up $15 billion and nine years too late. this makes absolutely no sense. it's a great idea. get you there fast go on the train, and i love trains but a big money loser. >> richard? you want to respond? >> well, here's the thing, when people try to talk about amtrak they are talking about the old system not talking about the high-speed rail. they are talking about diesel engines, a majority of them are across the country. but when we are talking high-speed rail we are talking energy-efficient faster cabooses moving people to and from work and to and from play a lot quicker. it's a great way to pump the

economy. a great to put americans back to work. and on top it allows us to compete with global partners all across the world investing in high-speed rail in record numbers. china is spending 9% of their gdp on infrastructure. >> gary b. last word. you have 20 seconds. >> well, look richard, let's just say he makes great arguments. the question comes down to why does the government need to do it? >> well, the government -- is the government going to be the boss or not? that's one of the main questions. thank you, guys. cashing in. just over an hour from now, eric is on a different debate in the wake of this crash. hi eric. >> hi brenda. some democrats accused of using the amtrak train cash to demand more of your tax dollars. are they going too far? plus hollywood hypocrisy at its worst. celebrity manicured lawns in the middle of california's drought. cashin' in see you at 11:30. but first, move over

salmon. it has the pig squealing. the d.c. pork is back.

it's so shiny. i know, mommy, but it's time to let the new kitchen get some sleep. if you want beautiful results, you know where to go - angie's list. now everyone can get highly rated service even without a membership. you can shop special offers or just tell us what you need and we'll help you find a local company to take care of it. angie's list is there for all your projects, big and small. pretty. come see what the new angie's list can do for you. here at td ameritrade, they're always working. yup, we're constantly making thinkorswim better. like a custom

screener on your desktop, that updates to all your devices. and you can share it with one click. wow. how do you find the time to do all this? easy. we combined every birthday and holiday into one celebration. (different holidays being shouted) back to work, guys! i love this times of year. for all the confidence you need. td ameritrade. you got this.

here we go again. more government pork expos. $4.2 billion is unveiled in new pork this year from $15 million

for salmon $20 million for alternative energy research. $3.4 million for a national prison. gary b. this could be chump change compared to national debt but you say we have to start somewhere. >> absolutely brenda. and unfortunately we need to start right back at the basics. and i'm talking constitution because right now we've given the fox the keys to the hen house. the elected officials rely on the pork to keep getting elected. they are not going to want to change it. we need a balanced budget. we need a flat tax and need to start some kind of amendment in tht can't keep raising taxes to pay for all this pork. >> okay. richard, one man's pork may be another man's important government project. >> that is indeed true. now, don't get me wrong, i think there's wasteful spending that happens in our government. so agree on that point, but there are meaningful projects we have seen pork create. but the internet and a lot of other things.

that being said i think there has to be a balance here and balance is going to be key. what the government needs to invest in is research and development, but beyond that we have to make cost savings somewhere even though it is negligible and a drop in the bucket. >> hadley do you think we can slow the pigs down? >> i'm a little cynical and think pork will always be a feature of our government. but i think we can minimize it. and one powerful tool is knowledge. knowledge is power. if we know what our lawmakers are up to and have more information available to us today in part because of the internet we can shame the lawmakers into making the right decision being more responsible with our money and not wasting it. >> john you are anxious to get in now. go ahead, go for it. >> look this is ridiculous to me. people say this is a drop in the bucket or this surrounding error, stealing is stealing. if you steal a little money, you will steal a lot of money. surprise surprise. the general says we don't need anymore. we have 2,000 sitting in a desert in california. we keep building them why? because there are supply chains all over the country buying

votes. they are stealing our money. somebody please prosecute somebody. >> okay. gary k. is it government spending or government waste? >> let's see, b. there is a cesspool between lobbyists, government politicians, you name it. this is small potatoes compared to the big picture. and government has doubled in size since the year 2000 where we are $18 trillion in debt and there's no shame by any of the politicians. we can talk all we want. they are just going to continue to do this over and over again. some of this is comedic but it is sad because money could go to good things at risk kids and things important, not salmon. >> i have a feeling we are going to be doing this segment next year thanks guys. thanks to hadley and richard for joining us. we appreciate it. next weekend, a lot of you plan to hop in your car for the memorial day holiday. well this weekend, get the nam

in a work, work, work world... take time for sunday. just know that your truck... has a little thing for monday.

predictions, what do you have? >> people are going to go back to driving like they used to. >> gary k. bull or bear? >> bear. energy is a bear market. the whole complex. >> john your prediction. >> forget driving, run. up 20% in a year.

>> gary. >> don't like retail stocks bear. >> gary b.? >> dunkin is going up 20% by the end of the year. >> john you have something to say about dunkin. >> i'm a krispy kreme guy, sorry, gary. >> cavuto toeon business is coming up next. i think the effort to suggest that the poor are sponges, leeches, don't want to work are lazy are undeserving, got traction. look it's still being propagate propagated. i have to say that if you watch fox news on a regular basis, it is a constant menu they will find like folks who make me mad. i don't know where they find them right? they are all, like