everybody has questions about those body scanners, those patdowns, but again he's trying to calm the fears of a lot of people out there. also out in los angeles, the funeral of the los angeles publicist ronnie chasen will be taking place today. she was murdered on her way home from a movie premiere. the beverly hills mayor says this was a planned attack, she was 64 years old, shot to death while driving her vehicle. time for me to hand the air waves over to candy crowley and "state of the union" coming up right now. thank you for being with us on this "cnn sunday morning." two weeks after a political rout and week after an economic trip underseas the president moved on a third front, convincing nato auto a lies to stand by him in afghanistan. >> we adopted the goal of afghan forces taking the lead for security across the country by the end of 2014. >> and trying to get republicans to stand with him on a nuclear treaty. >> there is no higher national security priority for the lame duck session of congress.

>> preparing toner it the second half of his term, president obama faces a new political dynamic, and many of the same old problems. -- captions by vitac -- www.vitac.com >> today admiral mike mullen on matters of war and peace. >> i think it's critical that we move forward as rapidly as we can. >> then a million and a half thanksgiving flyers and the backlash over body scans and patdowns. we'll talk with the head of the transportation security administration, john pistole. >> the bottom line is we need to provide for the best possible security. and tsa critic congressman john micah. >> i'm going after reforming tsa. i can tell you that. >> 'm candy crowley and this is "state of the union." nato set 2014 as the year they want to turn over all security in afghanistan to the afghan government. not soon enough for some but too

soon for others for the risky politics and violence in afghanistan may defy a solution for years to come. 655 coalition troops including 451 americans have been killed in afghanistan so far this year. now the deadliest year since the war began in 2001. joining me to discuss the way forward in afghanistan and more admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. thank you, admiral mullen for being here. >> good morning. >> preern it. 2014, vice president joe biden was on "larry king" and called it a drop dead date. what does 2014 mean to you? what does that mean? >> i'm encouraged by what happened in lisbon over the weekend. nato, 28 nations, member nations in addition to another 20 nations who contribute troops all affirmed 2014 for the thyme we turn over security responsibilities to the afghan security forces. so president karzai and his leadership will have responsibility for his own country in terms of security.

we think that's a reasonable goal. obviously there's a lot between now and then. nato also affirmed that that transition would start in the spring, we don't know exactly where it will start, but i'm confident of that date. >> province by province is what you're looking at? >> we are actually looking at district by district, which we expect will start in the spring. so we've laid out a plan. we think that's a good target, with an expectation that it can be achieved. >> well, when the vice president says drop dead, does that mean no matter what, u.s. combat forces will no longer be in afghanistan in 2014? >> just like iraq, there will be a transition point that's it, and we will have forces to i think the president said it yesterday as well to train and assist but in terms of combat forces, that's certainly the plan at this point. >> and that's true for nato forces and for u.s. forces.

>> that's correct. one of the agreements that was signed this weekend was a long-term agreement between nato countries in afghanistan as well, all of this speaks to the long-term commitment to afghanistan, though afghanistan clearly must take the lead. >> and what is the footprint that you envision will be left in afghanistan after 2014? we know there are still 50,000 u.s. troops in iraq, although combat forces had been brought out. what's it going to look like in afghanistan? >> very difficult to know, candy, at this point what it would look like. it's too far off. clearly we have an expectation that it will be dramatically reduceded from where it is now, we have almost 100,000 troops there today, but in terms of specifics it's just too soon to tell. >> do you have a ballpark? could it be, do you foresee thaw might need more troops to help with the training, and that sort of thing, after 2014 than you'd need in iraq, given the complexity of afghanistan? >> no, we really haven't sat down and done that detailed work

right now. there are just too much uncertainty between now and then to say this is what the footprint size would be at 2014. >> let me try to get you to subtract how many forces are currently, u.s. forces are currently in afghanistan that you would categorize as combat forces. >> well, right now, there's a substantial number, specifically, i mean we've added upwards of 60,000 since president obama came in, vast majority are combat forces. we focused on establishing large footprint in terms of training afghan security forces but the vast majority are combat forces >> let me ask you about these m1 abrams tanks. these are big heavyduty cold war machines. why do you need them? >> well in fact they really were deployed in the area with the marines who had gone over there, specifically, and they will be

part of their force package, if you will, in the south. and the marine leadership there felt it very important to have that additional capability there. it's not a significantly large number, but it's really tied to the campaign itself, and what we think will be an important part of executing that campaign. >> the fire power, you needed the fire power. they needed it. >> actually the fire power, the force protection, as well as a maneuverability and the range. >> let me ask you about something that i spoke with former president bush last weekend, we were talking about whether or not enough forces were sent to afghanistan to begin with, and he said something interesting i want to you take a listen to it. >> what happened in afghanistan was that our nato allies turned out, some of them turned out not to be willing to fight, and therefore, our assumption that we had ample troops in the u.s. and afghan -- and nato troops turned out to be a not true

assumption. >> would afghanistan have played out differently had nato forces stepped up to the plate with combat troops? >> we really, from my perspective, fought afghanistan for years from an economy of force standpoint, and i have said for a long time that we didn't have enough forces there. we didn't have enough u.s. forces and we didn't have enough nato forces. that was, from my perspective, because we have, we were heavily focused on iraq and i was literally looking at the resources that were headed in both directions. and so i'm -- as we have changed the strategy focus and gotten the resources right over the course of last year this is the first time we really are where we need to be in terms of executing a comprehensive strategy. >> would you agree with the premise that some nato forces did not perform in the way you expected them to perform in terms of combat? >> i'd actually come at it from

a different point of view, we've worked with our nato forces, our nato partners over many years now, and in fact, as we have increased forces over the course of the last year, they have also added additional, added an additional 10,000 forces, so while it was underresourced sort of across the board now we have the resources and the unity in nato that we just didn't have before. >> i want to read you something and i know you've probably read yourself this came from president hamid karzai in an interview with the high pressure, he said "the time has come to reduce military operations. the time has come to reduce the presence of, you know, boots in afghanist afghanistan, to reduce the intrusiveness into the daily afghan life." most americans would say great, bring them home. >> i think what president karzai is expressing is his concern as the head of state of a sovereign country that he has and that his people have, and certainly we recognize that, in terms of the

challenges that are there. >> you know, we're over there helping him and he's in the front page of "the washington post" going, i wish you guys would leave. >> well i think, again, these are concerns that he raised over an extended period of time. each one of them specifically, and as i look at president karzai and look back over the last year, certainly we have taken these concerns into consideration in what we've done. we need to do that. we need as the president has said to listen to him but he also needs to listen to us, and i think that's an important part of this partnership, specifically. president karzai is also, you know, some measure of him from my perspective is what he's actually done, and what we've been able to do, it's not just been the discussion or the rhetoric specifically, so i measure them in that regard from a partnership standpoint and in that regard he's been supportive, squen ral we tgene e

petraewe tray petraeus has met with him frequently. >> north korea is making news today, took a u.s. scientist through what he described as aed modern fa tilt, they looked prepared to be able to enrich uranium there. what do you make of the timing of this and what is north korea trying to say? >> well, from my perspective, it's north korea continuing on a path which is destabilizing for the region. it confirms or validates the concern we've had for years about their enriching uranium which they've denied routinely and that when i look at this, i look at the sinking of the "c "ceonan" a few months ago where they killed 46 south koreans, it is consistent with belligerent behavior, and the kind of instability creation in a part of the world that is very dangerous. >> and just on a scale of one to ten, how worried are you that

this kind of continuing belligerence might lead to some sort of, a rather larger military conflict than some of the smaller ones we've seen? >> i've been concerned for a long time about instability in that region and quite frankly, north korea's been at the center of that. we've worked hard with other countries to try to bring pressure on them to have them comply. they haven't done that, and this, in fact, violates. the united nations security council resolutions 1718 and 1874. it violaolates what they said they'd do in 2005 with respect to getting to the six-party talks. so they're a country that routinely we are unable to believe that they would do what they say. >> i want to you stick with me for a minute. up next, what will it take for president obama to get a new nuclear treaty with russia. much more when we come back.

[ male announcer ] it's been said that the only people who can change the world are the ones who want to. well, we want to. and we invite you to join us. starting today, when you buy a chevrolet, we'll invest in renewable-energy, energy-efficiency, and tree-planting programs across america -- reducing carbon emissions by up to eight million metric tons over the next few years. and just one more way we can proudly say:

"chevy runs deep." ♪ no calorie sweetener granulated with fiber. sweet! [ female announcer ] tastes like sugar and has 3 grams of fiber per tablespoon. use it almost anywhere you use sugar. even in cooking and baking. sweet! [ female announcer ] splenda® granulated with fiber.

the president is playing against the odds in a head-on confrontation with republicans over a missile deal with russia known as s.t.a.r.t. he wants senate ratification before congress leaves for the year. the republican point man on the issue arizona's jon kyl pretty much blew up that timetable this week writing in a statement "when majority leader harry reid asked me if i thought the treaty could be considered in the lame duck session i replied i did not think so, given the combination of other work congress must do and the complex and unresolved

issues related to s.t.a.r.t. and modernization." russian president medvedev and president obama signed the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty in april, but the white house claims if the senate does not approve it before leaving, u.s./russia relations will suffer at a time when the obama administration is trying to bolster russian support for the war in afghanistan, and its dealings with iran. a two-thirds vote in the senate is needed to approve a treaty, meaning the white house needs every democrat and nine republicans on board. 14, if the issue spills into next year and the new senate. they are pulling out all the stops and a republican hero. >> this is a continuation of a bipartisan policy started with ronald reagan in this case. >> keep in mind every president since ronald reagan has presented an arms treaty with russia and been able to get ratification. >> we'll get joint chiefs chairman admiral mule mullen's take on this when we come back. fiber one chewy bar.

how'd you do that? do what? it tastes too good to be fiber. you made it taste like chocolate. it has 35% of your daily value of fiber. do it again. turn it into something tasty. this guy's doing magic. there's chocolate chips in here now. how'd you do that? right! tasty fiber, that's a good one! ok, umm...read her mind. what's she thinking? that's right! i'm not thinking anything! [ male announcer ] fiber one chewy bars. cardboard no. delicious yes.

we are back with admiral mike mullen, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. let's move to the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. the president said, said it again at the nato meeting, there's an urgency, he wants the senate to ratify this treaty before they leave by the end of the year. we've had this treaty since april, waiting to be ratified. we haven't had inspectors in russia looking at their missile facilities for a year. what is the rush now? >> i'm extremely concerned just because of what you said, because we haven't had -- what we had before, a level of transparency, a level of predictability, a level of certainty with the russians and between the two countries, this is an arsenal that is, comprises

over 90% of the nuclear weapons in the world. that dependability in terms of verification, that dependability in terms of understanding each other is something we've had for decades in treaties before. so i -- >> you waited a year, can't you wait another couple months? i'm trying to figure out why this has to get done by the end of the year. is this some threat to u.s. security if it isn't? >> i think it clearly is a treaty that as time goes on, the lack of the transparency, the lack of predictability with the russians is something that i worry about a great deal. >> would it be fatal in some way for it to be done in february or march? >> again, i wouldn't describe it in any other way than i have in terms of there's a sense of urgency that i think, and there's an opportunity to get this done now, and from a national security perspective, i really believe we need to do that. >> let me move you to don't ask,

don't tell and the repeal of that. there's been some criticism this big study you've been doing hasn't been about whether repealing don't ask, don't tell and allowing people to serve openly as gay or lesbian in the services, whether this survey is about how to implement it or whether or not or how the troops feel about it. which is the study about? >> very clearly this was a study that was initiated to look at if and when the law changes, how we would implement it. key is the leadership that it's going to take to implement it when the law changes, specifically, and to understand as clearly as we could the issues that surface from those it would affect the most, men and women and their families. we've received that data, we are in the final throw throes of pu the report together by general hammond and mr. johnson and that report will be delivered to secretary gates here by december

1st. >> and i'm going to assume that this finds a pathway to repeal don't ask, don't tell, simply because so many military leaders have said look it's time and we can do that and you have been quite passionate on this. i want to ask you about marine corps commandant general amos, opposed to openly serving gays and lesbians in the military. if the day comes this is implemented and you're going to lift that ban, can he serve effectively in trying to get this integrated into the services? >> i don't think there's any question he can. i've spoken with him as recently as last week, and he recounted a town hall that he had had on the east coast recently, and he was very clear and very public to his marines, and he basically said that if this law changes, we are going to implement it, and we are going to implement it better than anybody else. so i have great confidence in

him that if it gets to the change in the law, that the marine corps will implement it as he's described. >> and let me circle back around to one subject, afghanistan, because i would be remiss if i didn't ask you about this report that's coming up in december, about how things are going in afghanistan. i'm sure you have seen at least some preliminaries on it. as far as you're concerned, are things going well and do you think that will be reflected in this report? >> well, we've started to make progress, things have started to turn. it's tra ji it's fragile, reversible and in particular on the security site, the report, the gathering of the data, if you will, has been ongoing for the last couple of months, and it is really a review that would look at how we are implementing the strategy, how are we doing. i don't expect any great strategic shift tied to this particular review, but it's focusing on having gotten all the inputs right, how are we doing in implementation. and it's starting to move in the right direction. >> so you expect that in the end

when you've collected all of this it will say okay we're moving forward? >> again i'm not going to pre-determine what the review will, in fact generate in terms of outcome, but we're very focused on putting the information together right now, focusing on the strategy and seeing how it's implemented, and there will be challenges associated with that. this isn't just about security, because we've got development challenges, we've got governance challenges, how well are we doing in training the afghan security forces which has gone pretty well, better than we expected but we still have challenges, so it's a comprehensive review about where we are. >> chairman of the joint chiefs of staff admiral mullen thank you for joining us >> thanks, candy. good to be with you. up next suspect tsa going too far with the full body scans and aggressive patdowns? we'll talk to the head of the tsa and one of its fiercest critics. creature growling ) >> ( horse hoofs beating ) >> ( horse nickering ) >> ( train whistle blowing ) >> ( engine revving )

>> man: experience the power of progress. take advantage of exceptional new and certified pre-owned values during the season new and certified pre-owned values during the season [ manager ] you know... i've been looking at the numbers, and i think our campus is spending too much money on printing. i'd like to put you in charge of cutting costs. calm down. i know that it is not your job. what i'm saying... excuse me? alright, fine.

no, you don't have to do it. ok? [ male announcer ] notre dame knows it's better for xerox to control its printing costs. so they can focus on winning on and off the field. [ manager ] are you sure i can't talk -- ok, no, i get it. [ male announcer ] with xerox, you're ready for real business. everything you need to stretch out on long trips. residence inn. ♪ everything you need to stay balanced on long trips. residence inn. ♪ [ upbeat instrumental ] [ rattling ] [ gasps ] [ rattling ] [ laughing ] [ announcer ] close enough just isn't good enough.

- if your car is in an accident, - [ laughing continues ] make sure it's repaired with the right replacement parts. take the scary out of life with travelers. call or click now for an agent or quote. the right to privacy and the threat of terrorism have run afoul of each other at the nation's airports, setting off a white house debate which boils down to this, how far is too far? a number of groups including the electronic privacy information center have questioned the graphic pictures from the new full body scan machines, now in operation in 70 u.s. airports. other critics say there is potential danger from the radiation. a recent cbs poll found 81% of americans approve of the scanners. a finding somewhat muted by other figures showing that fewer than half of americans have even flown in the past year.

some statistics say the flying public is closer to just 33% of all americans. adding volume to the uproar for many recent flyers is the alternative to body scans, the government refers to them as enhanced patdowns. >> i stood there, she said to spread your feet apart, hold your arms down, patted down my arms, upper back, lower back and she told me she was going to reach inside my waistband which i got uncomfortable. >> she basically touched me everywhere on my body, including up, my legs, the inside of my legs, under my arms, across my breasts, under my breasts, everywhere. she touched me everywhere. >> i felt like it was a violation of, you know, my body, my privacy. >> tsa administrator john pistole was called before the senate commerce committee this week. >> do i understand the sensitivities of people, yes. if you're asking am i going to change the policies, no. >> john pistole is next. i love my curves.

but the love i have for strawberry shortcake, threw a curve at my curves. so i threw it right back... with yoplait light -- around 100 calories. now i love my curves in all the right places. ♪ now i love my curves in all the right places. [trumpet playing "reveille" throughout]

let's support the small business owners getting our economy booming with the first ever small business saturday. on november 27th, shop small. it's going to be huge. [trumpet playing "reveille" fades to silence]

joining me now john pistole, administrator for the transportation security administration. thanks for joining us for what i know is not the most fun part of your job so i appreciate it. i wanted to -- hillary clinton was on a couple of shows today, in portugal at this point with the president. she was asked about these new enhanced security measures and she said, she understands how offensive it might be. she says there is a need for the government to strike the right balance and to get it better and

less intrusive and more precise. she was asked if she would submit to a patdown and she said not if i could avoid it. i mean no, who would? she then said the government security experts are "looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public." in what ways are you looking? are you looking for ways to calm this uproar and change what's going on? >> there are a number of issues here that we are addressing, the most focussed is the current threat environment, given the current threat stream being informed by the latest intelligence. we face a determined enemy who has been adept at devising and concealing explosive devices, bombs, that will target not only aviation in terms of commercial aircraft but also cargo aircraft as we saw in yemen recently. so absolutely right the challenge is how do we balance the security that everybody wants, everybody wants to make sure they get to their

destination safely with the privacy everybody wants also, how do we find that precise blend for each person. >> do you think you have it? >> i think it is situational, frankly. so for you, you may say i want this level of security because i want to know that everybody else on that plane has been screened thoroughly. somebody else may say well i would rather manage some risk and say i don't want that thorough of screening so i would rather take a higher risk. that's a public policy debate, for us in tsa, it comes down to how do we give the highest level of confidence to everybody on that flight that everybody else has been properly screened, including you and me. >> well, i'm asking the question because the secretary of state seemed to indicate in saying we're looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public. seems to be slightly in conflict with your saying i'm not changing this, what you said to congress. has something changed? >> so what i -- the construct is that tsa is really the last line of defense for the u.s.

government in trying to keep the traveling public safe so we hope to be informed by all of the latest intelligence as i mentioned earlier, to make sure that we have all available techniques and technology to provide the best level of scrutiny, knowing that there's no 100% guarantee here. if all the other levels or layers of security have not worked and somebody literally gets to the airport and is able to get past detection officers, all of the information we have, the travelers, the watch lists and all of those things if somebody is actually able to get to an airport with a bomb that is nonmetallic, not going to alert a walk-through medal detector, the ait gives us the best opportunity to detect that device and everybody has the right to opt out. if they opt out we want to make sure for example christmas day they receive a thorough patdown so they don't pose a risk to the plane. >> she seems to indicate that you're looking for ways to make these patdowns less on russ, to

make these -- and/or to make the full scan body scans, the electronic strip search are you looking for ways to make the patdown less onerous. >> the few people who received the patdown in spite of all the public furor about this, very few people do. >> sure but they have rights and we should care about them as well. >> i do and want to be as sensitive as i can to the folks and i'm very attuned, given all the concerns that have been raised to answer the question directly, no, we're not changing the policies, because of that, because of the risks that are, have been identified because of the current threat, and we have a travel advisory to europe now, we know through intelligence that there are determined people, terrorists who are trying to kill not only americans but innocent people around the world.

>> so when the secretary of state says the government security experts are looking for ways to diminish the impact on the traveling public you don't know what that is? >> no, i think what she's talking about is trying to be informed by the latest intelligence saying how can we use the layers of security in the most efficient, effective way while protecting the privacy of people and blending that with the security that everybody wants. >> let me get you to look at a couple, we have three sort of quick videos. i want to ask you over the line, under the line, however you want to look at it. >> sure. >> these are from the airport obviously. so, that okay? >> that would -- yes, that's okay if it is a result of this person alerting some way through an alarm on a walk-through metal detector or the advanced imaging technology machine. >> next one. this is a hand obviously going inside the pants. is that okay? >> that's okay around the belt line. what we're doing here, candy,

just so people are aware on christmas day with the underwear bomber, what we're looking for here is, you notice the officer with the gloves on, those gloves will then be tested for explosive trace residue so it's not simply a matter of physically determining whether there's something in the belt or waistband but is there explosive trace residue to be picked up and determined to prevent somebody from getting on a plane like abdulmutallab did christmas day. >> here is the last one. is that okay? >> yes. it's clearly invasive, not comfortable. it really comes down to what is that balance between privacy and security, and without profiling, people talk about why don't we profile, of course we don't do that here in the u.s. but we use all the latest intelligence, we have watch lists, know about people who pose a threat to aviation security, those we won't know and the balance between privacy and security.

>> something from the president of the allied pilots association talking in general, not just about pilots who said recently there's absolutely no denying that the enhanced pat-down is a demeaning experience. do you agree with that? >> i agree it is more intrusive than it has been. >> is it demeaning? >> it really comes down to the person. i've talked to a number of people said this is exactly what we need to be doing, it is thorough. i want thoroughness when i get on a plane to know everybody has been screened properly. to some people it is demeaning. >> what's over the line? what's over the line? all of the things were fine. a woman breasts being felt, a man whose, you know, had another man's hands in his crotch. what's over the line? >> i think that's for the public to help inform that discussion. clearly if we are to detect terrorists who have again proven innovative and creative in their design and implementation of bombs that are going to blow up airplanes and kill people, we

have to do something that prevents that, so it really comes down to the question -- >> the public didn't have any choice in this and there is outcry, and they don't really know -- i know you've driven everybody to the tsa website and said look here. but because you don't want to reveal to terrorists what's going to be checked, there's no way for anybody to look at that website and know where they're going to be touched and where it's not allowed to be touched. what you seem to be saying you can be touched anywhere. >> i'm not saying that at all. there are standard operating procedures for the patdowns. some of the horror stories i've heard are frankly inaccurate, either misinformation or whatever, there are a number of people who have been touched as you say, patted down in a way that they never expected. so one of the things -- and that's my responsibility, because i did not advertise this, if you will, to say we are going to do this new type of patdown because i did not want to provide a blueprint or roadmap to the terrorists say here is our new security

procedure. here is all you have to do to -- >> the public can't figure out what's right and what's wrong, what's okay and isn't okay and yet once they get in there they have to let people do whatever they're going to do or they get fined $11,000 and hauled out. >> very few people receive the patdown. >> we're still worried about them. >> if you don't alarm through the walk-through metal detector, everybody knows walk-through metal detectors have been around 40 plus years. >> correct. >> everybody understands that, the advanced technology is designed to detect non-metallics. make sure you take everything out of your pockets. if there's no alarm there's no patdown. it's layers of security, how do we invest and recognizing that reasonable people can disagree as to what their proper balance is for you, or for me or for the general public. it's easy to talk theoretically or philosophically what's the proper balance. what it comes down to is how do we actually afly to provide that best security, while respecting the privacy as we do with the

advancing technology. >> the incidence that we've had on planes since 9/11 have been were planes coming from overseas. the underwear bomber, the shoe bomber, all came from overseas. are people overseas coming into the u.s. having these sorts of patdowns? because i couldn't find a security expert anywhere that said yes they're doing this at this airport in this way, or that many of them are even using thee enhanced things. so basically, two people came from outside the u.s. that were threats to the u.s. and now we're doing this to basically innocent american citizens as far as we know. >> so i've traveled in europe several times in the last couple months and i have witnessed and experienced thorough patdowns, and i have seen very similar type of screening that is done in several european cities, airports, so i think we're consistent and of course we know some places around the world it's much more thorough than what we do here. >> where is it more thorough? >> well, some places that -- i

don't want to say particular country here or airport. >> people going through the airports know. so just like who has a more thorough? >> well, i think the israeli model which a number of people talked about uses intelligence in different way, profiling, and then if in terms of a patdown if they suspect you of something you receive a very thorough patdown there that, is top notch security. the question is, do we profile here in the u.s.? no, we don't, so how then do we use intelligence that informs a decision and judgments and given what we saw from last night in terms of this new web publication that describes in detail how the cargo bombs were done, how the design concealed, and how they are using technology to disguise and defeat the screening mechanisms we have in place, look, it's a difficult question, candy. there's no doubt, and i understand the public debate. i'm sympathetic to it. >> but you're still not going to change anything. >> no. not going to change. >> okay, i have to ask this for a friend, 14-year-old daughter,

she's disabled, can't stand without crutches, meaning that metal crutches which means she always, always gets a patdown. what about the disabled? veterans, older people, we have the story of a woman being participanted down who is a breast cancer victim, who had a prosthesis and had to take it out. what are the, what sort of things are there set in place for the disabled that have to go through what really sounded like an over-the-top experience. >> absolutely i'm sympathetic to each of the negative experiences. we've had extensive outreach to a number of different disability community groups, a number of different outreach efforts to try to say how can we best work with those in your community to affect security while respecting your dignity and privacy, all those things that are important to us as americans, and again making sure that we are working as a partnership to say, let's get through this together, let's work together, let's ensure that we are doing everything we can, while respecting the privacy and

dignity of each passenger ensuring that everybody else on that flight has been thoroughly screened. >> tsa administrator john pistole thanks for staying with us. next john micah of florida.

jing me now, republican congressman john micah who will be chairman of the house transportation and infrastructure committee come january. thank you for joining us. right off the bat, what could congress do about these patdowns and machines? anything? >> well just like the president and as you alluded to with the administrator pistole, secretary clinton, we've already, we've sent a message and democrats, republicans, liberals and conservatives to the administrator that we want this process reviewed. >> and you have said, you he no, looking you know, he has a balancing act. we all have a balancing act. you cannot stop everything. to you what is the most heinous of what's going on, if anything? >> first of all let me say that john pistole just came on board. we didn't -- and what you're

seeing now the patdowns and implementation of this new technology is just symptomatic, a slight tip of the iceberg of the problems of tsa. we didn't have an administrator for a year and a half. he's only been on the job a couple of months, and i think one of the first things i did to john is i sat down and said have you seen the reports of the failures of tsa, and i think he's trying to react to make certain that we have some means in place to detect the threat that we face. now, i don't think the rollout was good and the application is even worse. this needs to be refined but he's saying it's the only tool and i believe that's wrong. >> let me ask you about, you have called or asked some airports to consider private screeners, private companies to do security for the airport.

let's just say off the top that you do receive campaign money from some companies who are involved in these screening processes but the question i want to ask you is, the tsa sets the rules. so if you're going through san francisco airport, which has a private contractor dealing with security, what eight difference betwe what's the difference between going through that and an airport in washington which uses the tsa? >> first of all i've taken on a pretty big bureaucracy so they throw some things out there like 18 years of campaign contributions, all rolled into one. that's not the issue here. the issue is, is the very best security in place and whether tsa does it, private screeners, and actually the system i set up, i wrote the law and i put in there a provision that also the airports could do this, but we've got to get it right. we've got to make certain that, again, whether we have private, public or the airport doing it, that we have in place the

soundest. now your question was about san francisco. that was one of our private screening initial -- we had five initial airports that screened privately, and that went on for two years and we had two models and then we tested it, and i can tell you the results that came back convinced me and also others who independently analyzed this that the private screeners can perform statistically significantly better, not my words, their words. so we've got to take the best of the models, israel or europe or what we've experimented on our own watch here and put that in place. >> but in terms of passengers f the tsa sets the rules, there are still patdowns going on in san francisco or other places. >> yes. >> where they have so i just wanted to make that clear. >> well -- >> let me just -- >> but we've got two problems, though. you know, when i took this over in 2001, we had 16,500

screeners, and we converted them to federal with the two models i described. the tsa bureaucracy has grown to almost 67,000 with 3,590 administrative personnel in washington, d.c. making on average $105,000 a person. we've got a lot of bureaucracy and headed in the wrong -- well we've got them also headed in the wrong direction as far as who they're screening and how they're doing it. they make the decisions but i've got a heck of a big overhead and not getting the results i should have. >> quick yes or no question because we've run out of time >> yes. >> are you for or against the opt-out on wednesday, that is, an effort to slow down the whole process? for it or against it? >> i urge -- i think the public needs to work with us and we'll get right. i'm not going to support that. >> okay. >> we need to get it right and we will. >> thank you so much, congressman john mica, we really appreciate your time. >> good to be with you.

when we come back a check of the top stories and then an outgoing congressman adds a little mustard literally to one of his final policy fights. [ female announcer ] this is not a prescription.

this is norma. who's inundated with all the information coming at her concerning the medicare part d changes this year. so she went to her walgreens pharmacist for guidance

and a free personalized report that looks at her prescriptions and highlights easy ways for her to save. because norma prefers her painting to paperwork. see how much you can save. get your free report today. expertise -- find it everywhere there's a walgreens.

now time for a check of today's top stories. a flood at a coal mine in central china has trapped 28 miners. 13 people made it safely to the surface after the accident. the condition of the trapped workers is unclear. new zealand efforts to rescue 29 miners are facing more delays. authorities say they need to drill a new shaft to test the air quality because toxic gases are making it too dangerous for rescue workers. there has been no contact with the miners since the mine explosion friday. ireland plans to ask for an international bailout from its financial crisis. for more than a week the country has insisted it didn't need help. fears that ireland will be swamped by a crisis in its banking sector have put a strain on the euro and world markets.

palestinian president mahmoud abbas won't resume talks with israel until there's a freeze on the settlements in east jerusalem. israeli also reject any plan that includes halting plans to east jerusalem, a holy section of the city claimed by both sides. aids activists are praising pope benedict xvi for condoning the limited use of condoms. the pope says condom use may be morally acceptable to prevent the spread of aids. the head of the united nations anti-aids campaign is calling benedict's comments a significant and positive step forward. and those are your top stories here on "state of the union." up next, one democrat's fight against grey poupon conservatives. everything you need to stretch out on long trips. residence inn. ♪

everything you need to stay balanced on long trips. residence inn.

try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis. the debate over whether to continue bush era tax cuts for the wealthy has dominated washington for months. we have heard it all, until congressman allen grayson took

to the house floor to contemplate what they'd do with the tax breaks. >> they could buy 20,000 jars of their favorite mustard, grey poupon. >> limousine liberals and soccer moms and grey poupon conservatives. it describes it as a special type of muss card known for being the preferred choice of the wealthy. old people use it, also, rich people. also presidents. >> i just want mustard, no ketchup, you got like a spicy mustard, something like that, or dijon mustard, something like that? >> some of his fiercer critics accuse the president of being elettist for wanting dijon on his burger. grey poupon praised him for exercising his right to choose the coniments freely. it reveils for a little over three bucks, about the same as its competitor, hellman's dijonaisse. grey