not causes over a million jobs. the boom bust course has failed. to many seem to want to return to the policies of the past. the new administration congress is hard of work to repair the broken foundation to stabilize the economy and repairing the oversight and beginning the process of ending the kerb. -- curb. we must turn off all our attention to rebuilding a new economy. we must attend to the quality of the job center being created. we must step back and develop a national strategy for long-term job creation. professor of leadership has

spurred growth in which investment and technology that support our nation's investors as they create quality jobs for american workers. no one understands that objective and that strategy better than our speaker today. steny hoyer has been a great friend. he needs very little introduction. but me briefly say he started his career in 1966 when he both graduated from georgetown university law center and won a seat in the maryland senate. in 1975, he would elected president of the maryland s. in '81, he is elected to represent the congressional district. with speaker pelosi, he has kept an unrelenting focus on

america's struggling workers. we look forward to hearing his thought about the right course to take. please come and join me in welcoming steny hoyer. [applause] >> thank you very much. i am always pleased to be here. i am particularly pleased to be here facilitated by the action fund. thank you very much. i had the opportunity to speak before we came in. i am always pleased to be here with my good in here from martin frost.

thank you for being here. america has faced its share of trials, at times when not as our economy but our nation seemed in decline. each time with ingenuity, hard work, and are distinctly american optimism, we have built our way out and we have to emerge stronger. no one doubts this as one of those tested times. the question will be in front of us is not where we are. it is where we go from here. it is a choice between too dramatically different direction. our decision comes down to three questions, how far we have come, what remains to be done, and which party and will keep moving us forward? first, how far have we come?

but consider an alternate tester. america is facing the worst the economic crisis in a generation. americans are losing almost a hundred thousand of -- $800,000 per month. businesses are forced into laos. innovative start-ups cannot start up. a new president and the democratic congress are struggling for solutions. negotiations break down. congress remains paralyzed. in the end, we do nothing. as a result the nonpartisan cbo tells us we would be looking at 2 million additional unemployed americans.

the economy would likely have continued to shrink. retirement savings would have remained devastated. the global recession would have become catastrophic. it was that bleak picture that led former reagan economic adviser martin feldstein to endorse substantial deficit spending to pump life into the economy saying "i do not think we have a choice." and a thinking about how worse- in is not much comfort to anyone who is struggling to find work. any honest look to our economy has to come -- has to start with them on this conversation about the disaster we have at this time averted. for a year-and-a-half ago, economists were talking in all

seriousness of what the risks of a second great depression. instead, would stabilize the financial system, injected demand into the economy, and created jobs. in fact, almost as many jobs in the first six months of this year as did george bush created in the eight years of his presidency. the private sector as added jobs for six straight months. by comparison come into more than two years after the end of the last recession for our economy to return to the sixth consecutive month of job growth in the private sector. that progress data would vital investments not is in our immediate recovery but in the foundations of prosperity for years to come. the are rebuilding roads, railways, bridges. using funds to help local governments invest in

infrastructure projects in the most. we are investing in our children's future. we can teachers in the classroom and have more young americans reach their goal of a college education. we are helping doctors and hospitals computerized medical records so patients can be treated even more effectively. we have found a clean energy technology that will help save energy and become less dependent on foreign oil. technology that will respond to needs in real time. just as the internet was created was support of the government, today will bring the groundwork for transformational technologies that can shape our economy and create jobs. for 98% of americans, taxes are now lower than they were in any single year under president obama. despite republicans' efforts to

demonize the policies, it cannot refuse the nonpartisan analysis that shows that they have been responsible for as many as 3 million jobs. they cannot enjoy those investment in a fit in their own communities, not in the house minority whip himself as toasted 3 job fairs erotically featuring employers 11 fitted from such federal funds. it is a policy he voted against. in fact, while house republicans voted against, more than half of the republicans have taken credit for them in their districts. brazil has signed into law a higher at the cut employer taxes for every unemployed worker hired back.

democrats have also passed legislation helping to support $28 billion in new lending for small businesses. we hope to do another 30 elem leverage into 300. senate republicans do not see it that way. we have protected americans from abusive credit card lending practices, making the biggest practices and lending his street without adding to the deficit it will have an important jobs impact. it will put american enemies on a more even playing field.

president obama has just signed the floor and legislation to prevent the referee's back on the field and told wall street accountable for the reckless conduct a that a crash our economy. wall street reform will create a bureau and make sure that borrowers and lenders live up to the common-sense standard of responsibility and honesty. it and tarp and interest because of any financial crisis will be borne by the financial industry, keeping taxpayers off the hook for future bailout, which was requested by president bush. wall street reform will remove economic uncertainty, hoping to free up a $1.80 trillion in cash sitting on the sidelines.

it is poised to be redeployed. there is company did to uncover. the more our financial system gets back toward its core purpose. it helps allocate capital for families investing in their future into entrepreneurs investing in job creation. all of those policies have a common thread. after a lost decade, middle- class americans now have congress and administration that is helping it to make up lost ground. . .

the second question becomes, what remains to be done? democrats are fighting for middle-class republicans as much as they want to use the economy as a political weapon, are looking to go back to the very same policies that caused many of the problems the middle class confronts today. in fact, the chairman of the republican congressional campaign committee, whose job it is to recruit members to come to congress to make policy , said, and i quote, "we need to go back to the exact same agenda," meaning, of course, the bush agenda of the 2000's,

which have left us in the deepest economic recession we have seen in three quarters of a century. by almost all indications, it was an leaned that failed. that is agenda to which the chairman of the committee says the republicans want to return. democrats, on the other hand, are putting forward new ideas to drive our recovery, particularly when it comes to our vital manufacturing sector. that's why house democrats are launching the make it in america agenda. a strategy to boost american manufacturing. for generations, for generations, americans have looked at our manufacturing sector as a source of economic vitality. a source of good paying jobs and a source of pride. almost has always been proud to be a country that makes things. somewhere those jobs and that pride are a thing of the past, but democrats don't believe

that. and we are committed to the make it in america agenda will encourage bills to make it in industry and improving manufacturing infrastructure and innovation, strengthen the america workforce, and create a level playing field for american manufacturers that compete worldwide in this flat world of which tom friedman spoke. n america agenda is made up of a range of bills that will come to the floor in the coming weeks, including enhancement act which passed the house on wednesday. it makes it easier for american companies to get the materials they need to manufacture goods here. the sectors act which passed this week, it foreigns -- forls partners to train workers no needed jobs.

the national strategy act which will direct the president to develop a manufacturing strategy for the nation every four years. the -- to end the trade deficit now act which will lead to policys to reduce the trade deficit. the clean energy and technology manufacturing and export assistance act will insure clean energy firms have the information and assistance they need to compete at home and abroad. the ways and means committee will hold hearings next month, actually if september on -- the issue of china's currency policy, legislation introduced by tim ryan. these bills of course are just a start. this is not an agenda just for the balance of this year. this is an agenda for the long-term. there's more to come. many house democrats are coming forward with ideas that can

contribute to our manufacturing revival. let me say, i welcome ideas from the republican colleagues and for the american public, particularly the msg sector itself. all of these efforts will bolster, bolster president obama's plan to support two million more jobs by doubling u.s. exports in five years. it is a plan that is showing success with exports up significantly over last year. and they will build on the impact we already had since the beginning of this year. our private sector has actually created 100 -- 136,000 new manufacturing jobs. i hope the republicans as i said, will join us in working toward strengthening and expanding and growing our manufacturing sector. i'm glad that many of them supported the manufacturing enhancement act. the sector's act in the house. there seem to be reluctance but

ultimately they reconsider those no votes and turned a yes. i am glad that we're seeing some bipartisanship in this make it america agenda. the republicans have an 18-month pattern of standing with near u nan mussness. these are waiting to be enacted. theyifies partisan problems. and one has won bipartisan support in the past. for instance we help business develop new technologies. we would further invest in science and technology and engineering and math education. we would encourage entrepreneurship and investment by letting businesses deducts startup expenses and exempting small business capital gains from taxation.

we would establish a now fund without decreasing the deficit to help banks lend to small businesss. because 45% of small businesses seeking liens were turned down last year. we would stepped as well the r & d credit. we wouldnd stax breaks that encourage corporations to outsource american jobs overseas. republicans are fighting to keep that loophole open. democrats want to close it and keep more jobs here in america. republican obstruction has been extended to unemployment insurance as is so well known by the american public. a time when there are still five applicants for each new job opening, unemployment insurance is one of the most effective ways of stimulating demand because of -- of course it is quickly spent because it is essentially needed.

republicans claim we can't afford it. i'm pleased that the -- president obama was able to sign the unemployment bill that we passed yesterday. that money will be coming into the economy. but also from a moral standpoint, it will provide suss stenn nance for families in deep distress still this the economy. take this msnbc analysis of congressman's session and senator cornen on meet the press just last weekend. quote, both sessions and corner were unable or unwilling to discuss what republicans -- would special do on the deficit. when nbc's david gregory demanded specifics and details

of painful choices, republicans were willing to make none. sessions didn't of a single one. that's the same thinking that condoned foreign borrowing under president bush and did severe harm to our long-term prosperity. democrats understand that short-term deficits have buenes ces for our recovery. in my view continue to be necessary. if we're going to bring this economy back we will never as i said in a speech a u few weeks ago solve the deficit problem if we don't solve building and growing the economy challenge. >> for the same reason the house will stepped middle class tax cuts for the next year, but we expect the senate to act first as speaker pelosi said yesterday. all of the job creation measures i discussed along with the middle class tax cuts represent only a small fraction of our

real long-term deficit problem. we do have hard choices. hard choices to make about our fiscal future and i've spoken about them as i said a few weeks ago in detail. but in making those choices, we have to steer between two grave mistakes. one would be following republicans that want to use our structural deficit as an excuse to put breaks on recovery. while millions are constitutional unemployed. that would put more americans out of work p-. it would actually increase deficits we're trying to reduce. another mistake would be putting our -- ourselves deeper into debt by making tax cuts for the wealthy permanent. republicans seem to be able to hold both of these positions at the same time. a combination of reckless borrowing and middle class neglect, that frankly characterized the previous administration. that brings us to the last

question. we pulled our country off the edge of disaster. we know what needs to be done for the americans who are still struggling. finally, therefore, the question becomes which party can you trust to do that. we know what economic philosophy looks like in practice. cut taxes for the wealthiest, cut regulations that guard against everything from wall street excess to oil company's negligence. we know what happened when they had unchecked chance to implement them a few short years ago. they drove our economy into the ditch. the deepest ditch we have been in three quarters of a century. they created a decade of stagnant incomes. during the eight years of the bush administration as i said, the worst job record since herbert hoover. a stark contrast with the clinton administration that created 21 million private

sector jobs in 96 hons as opposed to the net 1 million jobs created during the 96 months of the bush administration. oaf eight years of president bush, our economy added just a million private sector jobs. it was president bush who ran a 2.13 trillion dollars in deficits. and wiped out the biggest surpluss in american history. an inheritance of 5. trillion dollars, a national debt of some five plus trillion dollars turned into a national debt of 10-plus trillion dollars. that record is not an abrasion how far. a deck -- in decade after decade, the democrats performed better than on the economy than republicans. some may be surprised to hear that. market analysis -- analysts larry greenberg studied administrations from john kennedy to george bush and found

that, and i quote, jobs grew more slowly for each of the republicans than for any of the democrats. princeton political scientist larry bartal studied administrations from truman to bush and he found to quote a summary of his work, quote, when a republican president is in power, people at the top of the income distribution experience much larger real income gains than those at the bottom. by contrast, he said, democratic presidents generate higher income gains for all income groups. in 2008, the "new york times" asked this question. and i think this is such a compelling comparison. imagine that starting in 1929 you had to invest exclusively under either democratic or republican administrations.

how would you have failed? you make your choice in your head right now. you're probably not surprised at what the conclusion was. under republican administrations, your 10,000 dollars invested exclusively in republican administrations -- if you include the hoover administration would have net -- netted you today, $11,000 733. that's probably not fair. let's take out the hoofer administration which was argue my the -- hoover, which is arguably the worst. let's take that out in all fairness. if we're charitable and take that out, then you $10,000 investment exclusively during the course of republican administrations over the last 70 years would have resulted in $51,211. now i don't know how -- how good you think that is of a return

over 0e years, but -- under democraticed a strigses, if you taken that same $10,000 and invested it exclusively under democratic administrations, that $10,000 would be worth $300,671. so said another way, 600% more than if you exclusively had that money grow under republican administrations. so when we talk about -- about republican economic failure, we aren't talking about a passing trend. notwithstanding the fact that i can point out to you that during the course of the clintonned a strigs the dow grew 226%, the s&p grew by about 290% and the nasdaq grew by almost 300%. the aim statistics are all negative during the bush administration. from decade to decade and today,

democratic policies have supported innovation, the interest of working people and a better standard of living for all americans. republican policies have objectively favored the privileged and left working americans behind. we may write that off if republicans gave any indication that they reconsidered policies that cretted it. again, as they put it themselves, quote, we need to go back to the exact same agenda. i don't think americans had that in mind and i don't think they have that now. when you remember republican behavior over the past months, that going back to the agenda makes perfect sense. apologizing to b.p. when democrats held it accountable for the disaster in the gulf, comparing to the economic crisis to the size of an ant as boehner

did and working for wall street reform and portraying it as a bailout and putting tax cuts for millionaires ahead of the unemployed, i'm proud to put our party's middle class record against theirs any day. but our work is not done. we have stood up to wall street, brought access to affordable health care to all americans, reinstated pay-as-you-go on fiscal discipline and gone to bat for job creation in the face of ideological opposition, again and again and again for the last 18 months. democrats can tell working americans with confidence and with pride, we have stood for your interests. and we met crisis with the optimism that defines our country. and it is best -- at its best and can make a great nation even greater. so often, our leaps have come

out of the darkest moments. as president obama said and i quote, in the midst of civil war we laid railroad tracks from one coast to another and a twilight struggle for freedom led to a nation of highways an american on the moon and explosion of technology that shapes the world to this day. and today, if we choose shared growth, over spoils for a few, and our common interest over the special interest, this then too could be a remarkable moment in which we build our way out. we will make it in america once again. thank you so much. [applause]

>> thank you. i'm going to start with one question. i'll ask the first round of questions, could i see questions from just the media. if you could wait until a mic comes to you and please identify the organization you're with. before that, let me ask you a question about the tax cuts issue. i see this as emerging to the forefront. help me understand the -- the argument of those who would say that we should be at this point renewing the -- the upper class tax cuts and contrast that, make clear, because i think people are fuzzy, what is it that your party is argue og -- arguing for? and contrast to republicans. >> in 2001 and 2003, the are thinks put in place a policy that cut taxes but reinstated those taxes the next year so they would go up. we have indicated that we believe that -- that at this

point in time, with recession, that -- that we ought to have no increase in taxes on middle income working americans. clearly at a time of recession, you want to make sure that working people have the -- the ability to support themselves and their families. so we're going to -- going to -- complete -- or continue the tax cuts for middle income americans. how do we define middle income americans, those making $200,000 or less individually or $250,000 or less as couples. with respect to the -- to the tax cuts for the wealthiest in america, we have a severe deficit problem. those who are doing well will not have their lives adversely affected by continuing to contribute at a rate that -- that provides for the bringing down of the deficit and continuing to invest in the growth of the country. that's the policy that we're

going to be pursuing. >> thank you for that overwhelming applause. >> all right. >> middle class taxpayer who is in the back of the room. >> so, please if you bring the mic here. thank you. >> kim dixon at reuters. following up on that a bit. you said that the house -- will pass, will renew the middle class tax cuts for one year. could you talk about the significance of the one year. >> i don't think i said one year. i think there's been 134 discussion about that. that has not been decided how long that -- did i say it in my speech, i don't know that i said it -- >> the next year actually. >> you said it for the next year. >> certainly for the next year, but not necessarily for just -- >> just the next we're. >> one year. >> that's in discussion. the speaker indicated and i think as a result of our discussions with the senate, the senate i think will probably move first on the -- on these and we'll see what the senate does in terms of time frame.

we want to make it very clear that the -- that the working americans will not receive a tax increase. >> so you haven't made a decision on how long -- >> no. >> that's still in discussion. >> on the timing of when you'll take this up. before or after the election? >> we're waiting to see when the senate acts. we have one week left to go before the august break. the senate will be in for a couple of weeks. we'll see what they do and we could determine when we get back what roukt we have from them. also the media. thank you. >> thank you. jamie from u.s. trade. i wanted to follow up on the manufacturing issues you were talking about. it seems like the house is poised to act on a number of bills as you enumerated. there doesn't appear to be action on the senate. how -- can you help us

understand this? how do you defend defense the accusation -- >> across the board from the senate? >> on manufacturing particularly, how do you explain to someone that this isn't just election politician and these bills really have no chance of actually becoming law this year? >> as i said, absolutely is not election politician. we believe that -- first of all, we have invested a great deal of money in building the economy. we think we had progress on doing that. i make the distinction between progress and success, success is when we have eight million jobs for those people that lost their jobs in the previous election. 2.8 million lost their jobs in the last year of the bush administration. i want to contrast that to the 1.9 million jobs that were created in the last year of the clinton administration. we're making progress but we have not yet had success. this is a long-term -- a --

agenda for bringing back msg. nobody is going to turn a light switch on and all of a sudden have that happen. we need to adopt policies and a stredge to -- thed a stwration needs to come up with policy, to renew our focus on making it in america. it has two means obviously. first manufacturing, making good in america so that people -- can make it in america. have good jobs, and good benefits and a good future. -- for themselves and their children. >> so that -- this is not a question of what the senate could pass in the weeks remaining of this -- of this congress, it is -- it is establishing a principle that we intend to pursue both now and in the next congress. as a major focus of making sure that america grows its economy and -- creates jobs,

particularly if the manufacturing sector which has provided such good paying, stable jobs over the past. there's no reason why american workers can't compete with workers anywhere in the world, if they have a level playing field. >> one more media question, please. thank you. >> congressman hoyer from china strayed extra. you -- you have anticipated my question. >> is that a signal? >> i did. that the china currency bill, mr. ryan and mr. murphy's bill is going to have a hearing. is there any doubt in your mind that this -- this legislation fully fits within this initiative and -- and should get treated in the fall? >> there's going to be a hearing. clearly as i said, we need a level playing field. we're prepared to compete with anybody in the world.

but we can't compete when the rules are skewed against us. that is what the hearing will address. i'm sure secretary geithner and the administration will look at this and -- at this as well. but we frankly think there are a number of &s in which china is not playing by the rules and -- that our competitors do not have a -- a stable playing field there. i.t. is another area, a proprietary information is another area so that i think -- we're going to look at a number of areas. not just china, although china is obviously a focus of the ryan bill itself. but at other -- other -- other of our trading partners as well. >> we'll open it up more generally, come back up to the front. please identify yourself. thank you. >> dewey harris. imbedded technology, pennsylvania. >> last year, i ran -- as someone asked that this election

politician actually it isn't. last year, i ran into you on the hill and asked you about making it in america which is something you talked about. you sent me to your -- your chief of staff and your staff and they worked with us -- i'm a pennsylvania company on -- on technology. so i know that making it in america was something that has been on the agenda and actually you said get somebody in the senate, we did. senator burriss and -- we actually doing it in defense. i would like to know though as part of the make it in america agenda, since it is very important to have -- to have our technology and our circuits a everything made here -- it is start -- it started with defense. are you going to include adding defense into the measure in order to protect more jobs? >> clearly -- number of the pieces of legislation deal specifically with defense, defense acquisitions and obviously we passed acquisition

reform as you know. so the answer to that question is yes. >> congressman. >> here comes a tough question. [laughter] >> martin frost, long-time admire of stenny hoyer. >> i didn't set these up. >> this is an interesting question i'm going to pose. probably the single most cynical thing the republicans did on tax cuts was how they handled the estate tax. over a period of years, they increased the exemption so it would help small businesses and family owned businesses and family farms so it wouldn't have to be sold. then they had the estate tax totally disappear there year so that -- that when a billionaire like george steinbrenner dies, his family doesn't pay estate tax. then next year, they revert back to a low exemption which would

not be helpful for family farmers and to small business people. congress does not -- has not been able to deal with this issue, do you think that there's any realistic expectation that congress can deal with this issue this year? particularly because if -- if congress does not act, the exemption will go back to a very low level and it won't help a lot of family owned businesses. >> congressman, as you know, i believe that -- that we absolutely should act and must act. i think we will act. the house acted as you know last year to continue the 2009 rates of 3.5 and 46 -- 45% rate. that was responsible so everybody would know they had a $7 million exemption. every individual would know they had a 3.5 million exemption and know the rate of 45%. the cynical interestingly enough

fiscally irresponsible ploy by the republicans in 2001 and 2003 to phase out the tax cuts in 10 which puts -- it was a policy to raise everybody's taxes in 2010 -- or 2011 to raise everybody's taxes. that's the effect of the republican policies adopted in 2001 and 2003. now they will respond very quickly, we'll know we had to do that because of c.b.o. scoring issues. well, that perhaps is correct. the effect of their policy is to do what congressman frost has indicated. on the estate tax, specifically because we failed to act and -- in 2009, and the senate did not take up -- up the house bill, which would have given some certainty to families and to individuals, we are now in a position where this that estate tax is at zero.

but then because again of the republican policies that were adopted in 2001 and 2 003 it'll go back in 2u7b9 to 1 million 55% rate in 2011. that's unacceptable in my view. the good news -- frankly is presumably it is unacceptable to most republicans. what does that do? that undercuts their major strategy for the last eight months which is to delay and to obstruct. they need to have this passed because their policy will result in an objective they now say they don't want. so that i am very hopeful we give to families the certainty of a rate. my own view would be that when the house passed 3.5 and 45% it was a good compromise and should be adopted. it reflected inflationry increases in values of estates. it gave to -- to -- i don't know

the exact percentage, but over 98.5% of the states exemption from the paying estate tax. >> in interest of time. congressman? this is the last question. >> thank you. thank you majority leader hoyer for your comments, i appreciate it. i'm monica mire. >> thank you with your help with the bill this week. >> that was a victory. >>eo encouraged our republicans to reflect and we had a good vote on that. about >> thank you for recognizing that. the manufacturers released a stream just last month. there were three simple points. one is the united states ought to be the best place for a key to head quarter itself. two, the united states ought to be the best place for research

and development. it should be the best place for a manufacturer to be. regarding the r and d credit, it is mired in the senate for sometime. it expired at the end of last year for the 14th time. manufacturers claim 70% of the r aye d credits. any prognosis whether there will be a rhett acttive extension this year of the credit which is a jobs credit because more than 0e% of the credit dollars go to r & d jobs in the united states. >> i'm hoping -- i don't want to anticipate what -- what -- what we'll do on that. my own personal view would be, we need to make it retro active again to encourage. as you know, we have adopted statutory pay bill. that was the right policy to adopt because when the republicans jetsonned the statutory pay bill in 2003, as a practical matter they can

jetsonned in 2001 and 2 002. they actually eliminated the pay go requirement. what that allowed them to do was incur great debt without consequence. the consequence was we created great debt without paying for it. these are subject to pay go requirements. so we need to pay for those tax credits but having said that, my view is strongly that those credits are very, very important to the make it in america agenda. encouraging manufacturing in any way that we can not only through tax credits but the education component that you spoke of earlier so that we have the kind of technically scientifically, mathematically engineeringly trained people to take the jobs that will expand manufacturing. we believe with the national association of manufacturers that -- that america is the best place. we have the best resources in

our people. and given the proper environment we will be able to compete with anybody in the world. so i want to say to you that you could take the message back to the -- to the national association of manufacturers that i personally and -- the members of the democratic caucus look forward to working with -- with the national association of manufacturers toward our joint objectives. we don't always agree, obviously, nobody would expect that. but i think on this -- on this, objective of creating jobs and making sure that -- that the rest of the world know that is we can and do make it in america, america will be a -- a greater economy and our pream will be better off. >> thank you all very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> at a new york news conference, congressman charlie rangel refused to comment on the latest developments in the ethics investigation looking at his fundraising and other activities. an ethics subcommittee thursday said the congressman has violated house rules. mr. rangel could face a trial before his colleagues on the ethics committee this september. details on the charges against him will be announced next thursday. from harlem in new york city, this is just over 10 minutes.

>> take your time. well, thank all of you for coming on such short notice. my lawyers are going to kill me because they say that the best thing in my best interest is not to make any comment, but i noticed that this morning there were a crew of television people when i came to the office. there was a crew of television people, and i assume with this large turnout, that he should expect they would be with me, and i don't know how to say no comment. it's a very difficult thing for me to turn away reporters who are doing their jobs.

now, close to two years, i have been saying will you please wait until the ethics committee completes its investigation? it's been walk ard for me, and it's been awkward for you. they have completed their investigation. and i'm so pleased that they have and reported this to the ethics committee, this is going to be done before my primary election, before the general election, and in light of a public explanation as to what they have found as a result of the investigation will be made public. so there's very little i can say because the realm of confidential means on monday i will no longer be able to say wait until they complete their investigation, and i called this morning and had a very

good conversation with luke russet and apologized for the way i treated him on television. but when you can't give answers to questions, sometimes reporters feel compeled to go beyond what i can do. so i'm restricted to a note. i think everyone should be happy that i have not gone beyond that. someone said, why have a press conference if you're not going to answer any questions? i said, well, if they knew that and they still are taking the time to go where i live and to follow me around in the district, maybe this time i would be able to say that i met with you, i told you what i've had to say, and i do have congressional work to do, and i can tell you, tell those people that will be with me that, come thursday, we all will be able to move forward together. so if there are any questions

in connection to what i just said, i'll be glad to take them. well, at this point in time, i have to really consider the process that i'm going through and respect it. anything i say that would impact on other people that have no control over, i cannot make any comment that would make any sense at all. i cannot go beyond this statement because i'm here to tell you something that's awkward, and that is the investigation is over. come thursday, we will be talking about what? the allegations. as most of you know, all of the allegations you see in the newspaper, the allegations that congressman charles rangel referred to the ethics

committee for one purpose, to investigate. and it's kind of awkward to explain that to your kids and grand kids what you see in the front page, but hey, i'm in the kitchen and i'm not walking out. first of all, i'm taking this one step at a time. i don't ever remember using the word trial. and i'm dealing with today, and i'll be glad to see what happens on thursday. you know, i'm not the one that called this, and so, hey. now you're dealing with words. i want you to be dealing with facts. you know the allegations, you'll be able to get the report, i want you to analyze it, and i'm not even asking you

to be fair. no. hell, no. nobody in his right mind will be looking forward to something like this public, but frankly, i knew one thank, that when a person is elected to public office, there is a higher level of honesty and openness and transparency that's on him rather than just an ordinary citizen. and i want to make certain people know who charlie rangel is, was, and provided to be. i don't see how any comment like that can be very useful in the purpose that i asked you to come here. i mean, that's -- that's

objective stuff. i'm here to talk facts, and i'm here to tell you how relieved i am that i don't have to tell you what you should be so annoyed in hearing, would you please wait until the investigation is over? it is over. i'm glad you raised that question, because of course i'm not going to explain any relationship i have with my family, my friends, my constituents. it's a coming together, and it's been a rather moving, but very, very difficult experience. no, i can really answer that. that question is referred to my

attorney. look behind you. i can respond to that. that has nothing to do with thursday. i don't wish him good luck. i wish feelings had something to do with the facts, but it doesn't really. and giving you this, i'd rather write a novel.

four people have filed. i don't intend to attempt to get them off the ballot. as long as they're running, i intend on running. but then again, i run every day of every week of every month i'm in office. nothing that i can think of. i think that's about it, and i apologize i can go further, but i do hope you can get some satisfaction that this thing is coming to a head. it's almost like a ball. it's annoying, it's hurtful. it's harmful. then we can see what we have to work with. let me thank you so much. i would like for all. people that have read what

they've had to read how awful it has been for me to constantly have to say please wait until the ethics committee completes its investigation. i cannot think of anything that relieves me more than to be able to say to my constituents, this is the result of the investigation, so that they would know who charlie rangel really is. those of you who know me know that saying no comment is very, very difficult for me, and for anybody that that mean and cruel things have been said not to be able to respond, it's a very awkward thing. so yes, to my family, friends, and constituents that have been there for me throughout, i can only say without dispute that i won't let you down, and thank god, because the report is complete, and then we will do

like anything else and we'll discuss the findings. thank you so much for asking that question. we're wrapping it up, and you just came in, right? ok. what is it? you're getting involved in something i haven't been trained in. but pain is pain, and i thank you so much for coming. >> thank you all. >> thank all of you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the house subcommittee responsible for determining whether congressman rangel

committed any ethics violations will hold an organizational meeting this thursday at 1:00 p.m. eastern. we'll have live coverage on c-span3 and c-span radio. next live, your calls and comments on "washington journal." .