we'll get the liberal side of it from new york congressman jerrold nadler. and we'll bring in former presidential candidate howard dean to talk about the political fallout. then, i'll have a final word on washington's smoke signals. but first, david axelrod on "face the nation." captioning sponsored by cbs "face the nation" with cbs news chief washington correspondent bob schieffer. and now from cbs news in washington, bob schieffer. >> schieffer: and good morning again. david axelrod is in the studio with us. good morning, mr. axelrod. >> good morning. >> schieffer: so the president says the only way to get republicans to go along with extending unemployment benefits and keeping the same tax rates for middle and lower income people is to also extend those rates-- what some people call tax cuts-- for the upper income groups as well. the republicans, most of them seem to love it. the liberal democrats are in a rage. what do you do now? >> first of all, let's be clear that what we agreed to is not just extending the tax cuts from the bush era, but also some ta

that's his word. >> bill: i would ask nadler if he would show up. he won't he's afraid.thinks of the kennedy family, very, very wealthy. they are the democratic icons, i believe. the money that they accumulated was accumulated by joseph kennedy, a bootlegger who broke the law to amass the family fortune. yet the democratic party puts up the kennedy family. and believe me i respect the kennedy family. i respect their service. they do a tremendous amount of good. you don't blame the children for the sins of the father and all of that. but, i would ask mr. nadler, okay, here we have, you know perhaps the most famous family in the united states, democrat icons, hugely rich. hugely rich. what are you saying? >> they are liberal democrats. if you are hugely rich and a liberal democrat you get a pass. never seen class warfare as nasty as it is today, as a result of this tax debate. i've seen it. >> bill: it is generalized. stupid. irrational. steven spielberg beyond wealthy. you take a guy like bill gates the same situation. and these people, they make an enormous amount of mon

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant. but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure. some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of cor

nadler of new york, one minute.peaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for one minute. mr. nadler: let me first thank everyone who has worked on this bill and the senate passed this bill unanimously. senators enzi and coburn supported it and i hope we can do the same. the heroes of 9/11 ran into the buildings and rushed into the burning buildings and worked in a toxic environment for weeks and months. they have suffered for that. they have suffered for their service to this country by getting sick, by dying, by being sick. it is now up to us to see that the united states honors its heroes, that the united states does not turn its back on those who served us. when we passed this bill, we will answer the question whether the united states honors its heroes and whether the united states honors itself. let us pass this bill. let us redeem the honor of the united states after all these years. let us show the world that the united states looks after its own. that's what this bill is. i urge everyone

joining me now is new york congressman jerry nadler. congressman, good to have you with us tonight. >> good to be here. >> is this it, is this going to pass the house? >> i think a bill will pass the house tomorrow that'll be substantially the same as the senate bill with one change. we're going -- apparently we're going to change the estate tax so it won't be the senate version. it'll be last year's estate tax. it'll be $3.5 million examination for a single person and $7 million for a couple instead of one and two. >> the keyword here is change, congressman. you just heard mitch mcconnell, they have an understanding. what's your understanding of the understanding? >> well, they may have an understanding with the president but they don't have an understanding with the house. and for them to say we must take it or leave it is outrageous. we're an independent elected body. now i'm not going to vote for in bill in any event but there's so much here in it for the republicans that they should take this and they may yet, we'll see. >> well, y

nadler, is recognized for three minutes. mr. nadler: mr. speaker, i thank the gentlelady for yielding me the time. mr. speaker, i'm going to oppose this bill, however the rule comes out, for several reasons. number one, if this bill passes, we will extend the upper income tax cuts at a cost to the deficit of $700 billion for an additional two years. we're told that in two years, it will expire. but we also know that our friends on the other side of the aisle will try to extend it in two years. and in two years, we'll have the same kind of coercion. we will be told if we don't extend the upper end tax cuts, the middle class tax cuts will expire. i don't see any reason to believe we won't succumb to that coercion two years from now in an election year. i believe passing this bill would make permanent the upper end tax cuts which would generate a $700 billion increase in the deficit, which would make it impossible to fund housing, education and everything else we need. it would be the culmination of the republican effort to starve the beast an

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant. but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure. some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of cor

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant. but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure. some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of cor

. >> these neighbors did not want to appear on camera but this young nadler. >> he is not stable. parents. he has been in/out of jail and he is trouble, he's basically trouble. >> he is yelling at cars in the middle of the night at 2:30 a.m., alone and throwing up gaining signs he is sick in the mind in these to be locked away. >> and the gang signs--and run up those >> and she admits that he has recently spent two weeks and juvenile hall for punching walls in her holes in her walls. >> david st. wal-mart, and the san leandro, in a year- old was sexually assaulted by carlyle put his hand down the little girl's pants. and tried to escape that is when the good this american the stepped in. and malcolm mason spoke to the phone and what he did from carlyle from getting away. >> and i said that could have been my daughter, and i looked around and the growth was crying. and once i saw that that little girl was crying i said i'd better get him. i ran up on him. and he tried to run out the front door and i just stayed on him. and if he is touching a little kids to pleasure himself? i thin

congressman jerry nadler predicted the house would change the estate tax on this show last night. >> we're going to change the estate tax so it won't be the senate version. it'll be last year's estate tax. it'll be $3.5 million examination for single person and -- >> all right. >> -- and five -- and 7 million for a couple instead of one and two p for them to say that we must take it or leave it is outrageous. we're an independent elected body. i'm not going to vote for this bill in any event, but there's so much in it for the republicans that they should take this and they may yet, we'll see. >> so here's what the democrats are working on. congressman earl palmeroi he's leaving the congress. it would take the inheritance tax level of a 45% tax for individuals with an estate of more than $3.5 million. the senate bill has a 35% rate on estates beginning at 5 million. now if the house democrats make any changes to the senate bill, it's going to have to go back over to the upper chamber for another round of votes. this could move the final passage into next week. this is not what preside

along with jerry nadler and peter king. we've been working on it for seven long years. we finally passed it in the house of representatives with the democratic leadership. it's now in the senate and if it does not pass before christmas, we'll come back into a congress that is republican-led and the leadership has been opposed to it. >> rose: why is the leadership of the house-- republican leadership-- opposed. >> it's patriotic, it's the right thing to do, it takes care of the heroes that took care of us. god forbid that we have another attack, charlie. are people going to say "i'm not going tow go and protect because i'm not going to be taken care of"? it's public policy, humanity, the right thing to do. i can't speak for them. this bill should have been passed seven years ago. >> what's the explanation they give? >> two answers are well, it's for new york, it's for new york. but, charlie, you and i know that the towers are our financial district and was attacked not as new york but as a symbol of our economic strength, the same as they attacked the pentagon as a symbo

finally, at 4:00, face the nation has david axelrod, democratic congressman jerry nadler, and former vermont governor howard dean. these shows are brought to as a public service by the networks airs begin at arire- noon. listen to them all on cspan radio at 90.1 in the washington, d.c. area and sat/alliedxm radio. -- or satellite xm/radio. >> in london, a student riot. q &a expense to two programs each day. tonight, the former member of parliament and now writes for the times of london. q &a this weekend at 8:00, on c- span. >> judged porteous is only the fourth the judge to be convicted and remove. watch the senate trial and a final vote on line at the cspan video library. search, watch, and share any time all free. it is washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: our washington roundtable. good morning. an advance onet something you wrote about last week. about the health care bill and what is happening in the commonwealth of virginia. guest: there are a number of lawsuits that have been filed challenging the individual mandate in the health-care law. that is the re

nadler: thank you, mr. speaker. like many members of the house, i have long considered charlie rangel a friend and great public servant. but that is not before us now. we must now consider a report from the ethics committee finding that mr. rangel violated the rules of the house and recommending he be censured for that. i do not disagree he violated the rules of the house in serious way bus under our standards and precedence, his error demands a reprimand, not a censure. some sanction is necessary and appropriate but we should demand a reprimand not a censure. censure has been reserved for corruption, personal corruption, an attempt to gain money, or sexual misconduct. none of that is present here. you heard the discussion of people who were censured for personal financial gain, for bribery, for lying to the committee, and people like mr. gingrich and mr. hanson who committeed -- committed severe infractions but were reprimanded. in this case, the chief counsel for the ethics committee said he saw no evidence of cor