mr. o'rourke. that wouldn't be modern manners. after all this isn't a politics of war. by the way the session should end around lunchtime so after we are here you can go ahead and eat the rich. for those of you that don't recognize the titles i just spewed, you should look them up and read them. you won't be disappointed and you will both laugh and think at the same time. as someone who leaned on the era it is an honor to be here and no one had to threaten to shoot a dog to get me to come. it's my pleasure to introduce pj o'rourke and his publisher and editor for over 30 years the president and publisher. gentlemen, the stage is yours. good morning. thanks for coming great to see you all. we were backstage and remember when we were here for the first year or something and said i think that was just you on your own. we have known each other for 38 years. my memory of the first meeting was at some restaurant near the department you lived on mir the tunnel. much is lost in the fog 38 years ago. >> we

mr. o'rourke. >> i compensation in order to make -- they already volunteered for that move to philadelphia and to st. paul. do i have it basically right? >> basically, yes. >> so mr. pummill, do you disagree with any of that? >> i don't disagree with that, but i have not seen any of the evidence. >> okay. one aspect of this that seems to be in disagreement tonight is whether mr. mckendrick was forced out of philadelphia to l.a. do you disagree with the ig's conclusion that that seems to be the case? maybe forced out is the wrong word but was pressured to move from a position where he wanted to stay, his family was there, his kids were there, he's quoted as saying i wasn't jumping up and down to do this. do you disagree that he was pressured out by miss rubins? >> i would have to see both of their testimonies to the ig before i could make that determination. >> i'm asking because you said that you have punished police rubins and miss graves -- >> the def sec has punished them. >> for what are they being punished? >> i don't know. >> you don't know. >> no. this committee has actually seen mo

mr. o'rourke summarized what the conclusions are about her -- about what miss rubins did.and it is very, very difficult i think for those who use the facility and are looking for improvements to be able to say, i believe that all that has happened, all that good reform has been made when you have the person there who distorted all that do what she did. one last question, if i can, for mr. pummill. all ses positions appear to have been critical needs. critical needs standard is the standard that you need in order to use the relocation program. is that correct? >> it is correct that that's the standard you're supposed to use. all of the ro ses, ro directors, 56 ros that are secs are critical needs because they're so important. i absolutely admit we got to do a better job. that's why everything's on hold and we're re-looking at the entire process. >> i yield back. >> would you like to respond to mr. mckendrick's statement. >> yes. at philadelphia bureau we received over 200 allegations of problems with dealing with data manipulation, tinkering with the numbers, poor performan

mr. o'rourke will take your calls. julie reid will take calls on her book.om miami on c-span2 possible tv, starting november 21. be sure to follow and to usher be sure to follow us and tweet usher questions. "washington journal continues. stickiness -- dick carpenter is joining us to discuss civil asset forfeiture. explain what that is. it is a law that enables law enforcement to seize property from people who have -- who have not been charged with a crime. in civil forfeiture, no one is convicted of a crime. the property itself is charged and convicted with a crime under a -- legally. concern is that it gives police a financial stake in seizing property and cash and other things through the civil asset forfeiture process. incentivey have an that law enforcement can keep some or all of what they forfeit. it incentivizes revenue. it hashe concern is that been increasing in recent years. any report talking about some of the numbers through the years. by 2014, civil forfeitures have $4.5 billion. --k about how that were first created in the united states. there

mr. o'rourke. went to college, and you might have a good idea -- and i think their idea is probably valid -- these kids -- but you kind of overdo it. [laughter] shockedactually i was at what you said about president wilson. being such a big it, i didn't realize that. and perhaps he shouldn't be given any place of honor. just well, susan, can i extent that thought jekyll there is quite a -- thought? ande is quite a movement success in taking down confederate monuments, renaming dorms or buildings that are named after confederates. is that proper in your view? becausei think the flag it was a symbol. know, thegainst, you slaves at the time, and even in the 1950's and earlier before the -- before the law was passed making everything equal. history,etting rid of or historic figures, might be like almost denying our past. i can see why people would want to do that, but even with wilson, he was president could and part of our history. so maybe -- president. and part of our history. so maybe going too far