Transcript: The Latest on the Recovery Effort of Flight QZ 8501

ByABC News
January 4, 2015, 9:16 AM

— -- Below is the rush transcript for "This Week" on January 4, 2014. It may contain errors and will be updated.

ANNOUNCER: Now on ABC This Week, the mystery of AirAsia flight 8501: more pieces of the plane uncovered. Are they closing in on the black boxes? What caused the plane to fall from the sky? And how worried should you be the next time you fly in bad weather?

Shakeup: Republicans ready to take control of congress. Three of the newest power players are here.

Then, was it the first big announcement for 2016 in 2015? What did Mike Huckabee reveal overnight.

And, the homecoming: how cities across the country are giving homeless veterans a new beginning.

From ABC News, This Week with George Stephanopoulos begins now.

MARTHA RADDATZ, HOST: Good morning, I'm Martha Raddatz. And we're tracking developing stories on several fronts, including former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee making a big announcement about 2016 overnight. But we start off with new and encouraging developments in the mystery of AirAsia flight 8501.

Indonesian investigators say they may have found key pieces of the fuselage where the jet's black boxes are located. We'll talk to the U.S. commander taking part in the search shortly. First, the latest from ABC's David Kerley.


DAVID KERLEY, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: Bad weather, it's one of the things we know about the crash of AirAsia 8501. The weather was bad when the AirBus went down, and stormy seas have hampered recovery efforts.

ABC's Muhammad Lila is in Indonesia.

MUHAMMED LILA, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT: It's now been a week since the AirAsia flight took off from this airport. Investigators are now honing their search on where they believe the fuselage is about 100 feet underwater in the Java Sea.

Just today they located what they say is a fifth large piece of debris from the plane. And of course they've already recovered more than 30 bodies from the water.

They're using sonar and underwater drones as part of their search, but the biggest challenge facing them now is how do they get what they found in the water out of the water, because the weather has been so rough.

KERLEY: We know the plane crashed in the Java Sea and most likely broke up on impact, but how does a jetliner just fall out of the sky?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I have to think as usually is the case, there are a bunch of links in the causal chain.

KERLEY: Could weather have brought down the jet? These planes are built to survive lightning thunderstorms and turbulence. The last time a jetliner went down because of turbulence was back in 1966.

What about pilot error? An Air France jet went down in 2009 in similar bad weather, but the crew flew that jet too slowly right into the Atlantic.

It could have been a distraction if nothing else.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The storm could have been a distraction, you could have had something totally unprecedented in the history of AirBus, and that is a sudden catastrophic failure.

KERLEY: Catastrophic failure, that covers a multitude of problems: engine failure, electrical failure, fuselage breakup -- a wing or tail tearing off -- a breach of the pressurized cabin.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I think everything is still on the table here, including the possibility of a bomb. I'm not saying it's a high probability, but it's certainly one of the things that could have happened.

KERLEY: All just educated guesses. The real answers are on those recorders, the black boxes on the bottom of the Java Sea.

The Indonesians say sonar has detected five large sections of debris. From the description, one seems to be a large section of the fuselage, another a wing and the tail section where the black boxes would be located.

But the Indonesians have provided no images and no indication that the black box pingers have been heard.

Two divers were down on one piece of wreckage and reported poor visibility because of a muddy sea floor. So this morning, Martha, we know where it is but still few answers about why 8501 went down.

RADDATZ: Thanks, David.

And as you know, the U.S. military is part of the international team searching for the missing plane. Right now the destroyer USS Sampson is in the Java Sea near Indonesia and the ship's captain, commander Steven Foley joins us on the phone.

Thanks for your time, Commander Foley.

CAPTAIN STEVEN FOLEY, USS SAMPSON COMMANDER: First of all, I want to thank you, Martha, for having me on your show.

RADDATZ: So tell us a little bit about what's going on, on your ship this morning?

FOLEY: We've been searching using lookouts, using optical search equipment and scanning the horizon and using our helicopters in tandem to search a wide area.

The weather has been a little rough with scattered thunderstorms. The seas have been about two to four feet, increasing to about four to six feet when the rain swells come in. And we've been operating in three specified areas that the Indonesian authorities have assigned to us.

And you have to remember, this is their search effort and we're here to assist.

RADDATZ: And you have heard nothing from that pinger?

FOLEY: I have heard nothing, although we've searched quite of an expansive area, I haven't heard anything yet.

RADDATZ: What does it tell you that you haven't heard anything so far? Do you think you're too far away from it? Might it not be operational?

FOLEY: It's the range at which the pinger operates. It's only about a 4,000 to 5,000 yard distance in which we can hear the pinger. So the ship really has to travel right over it or within close proximity for us to hear that pinger.

RADDATZ: Thanks Commander Foley.

Let's bring in our aviation expert Colonel Steven Ganyard, a former Marine Corps fighter pilot and a mishap investigator. And Steve, what do you make of what you just heard from the commander?

STEVE GANYARD, FRM. U.S. MARINE FIGHTER PILOT: Well, they're searching in an area that's where the debris is, but we have to remember that the debris is more than 100 miles away from where the actual aircraft impacted the water. So I'm a bit surprised that they're not using the U.S.'s capabilities to listen for that pinger closer to where the impact point is.

RADDATZ: What do you make of this morning's news that seems like very big news if, in fact, they have located the tail of the aircraft where the black box, as David pointed out, is?

GANYARD: What the Indonesians have said they've seen is on this side-looking sonar, which creates a sort of a black and white picture of what's on the sea bottom. It's very grainy. You can't tell exactly what something is, but you can actually measure what you see on the bottom.

So, they've sent divers down, haven't been able to get down into that murky water. So I'm from Missouri on this one, I need to be shown that wreckage before I believe that we've actually found the airplane.

RADDATZ: But somewhat encouraging.

GANYARD: Somewhat encouraging. So, hopefully we will hear it. Why aren't we hearing the pingers, though? The pingers should be close to those major sections of the aircraft.

RADDATZ: I want to go through a couple of things. David brought up a lot of things in his piece about weather and such. I want to take some questions from viewers off social media. Karen Krowzak (ph), "whenever I've flown through turbulence, I've always comforted myself by thinking that turbulence will not bring down a plane. That soothing thought is now gone."

And Kathy Delaney (ph) says, "aware that the weather was so bad, why were flights still allowed to take off? From reports, the storms were at 50,000 feet elevations and very dangerous."

Address those two things.

GANYARD: So let's go back to turbulence, it was 50 years ago and two generations of aircraft ago that we lost an airplane strictly due to turbulence. So don't be concerned. The only problem with turbulence is you're going to get hurt if you don't have your seatbelt on.

As far as the other aircraft in the area, if we look at the radar, there were airplanes all over the sky over the Java Sea that day. It wasn't like it was so bad that nobody should have been flying. People are latching on to weather, because they saw there was some nasty weather out there. Whether it was the factor, or it was a causal factor in this FASP (ph), we really don't know.

RADDATZ: Well, let's go to one of the other questions that's been out there, the pilot asked to go higher to ascend to 38,000 feet. That was denied. It wasn't like he was just approaching a cloud or weather -- he was quite far out?

GANYARD: Correct. The Airbus has a terrific weather radar. So they would be looking you know minutes if not 10, 15 minutes out saying we need to come left to right, we need to climb. He made the request to climb. If it had been that much of an emergency he would have just done it on his own.

RADDATZ: And one other -- a couple more, reports it managed to land on the water -- this came from some Indonesian authority -- managed to land on the water and broke up on top of it?

GANYARD: We have absolutely no idea.

The thing that's such an interesting mystery about this is 32,000 feet straight and level with the last solid evidence we have of this airplane. If the airplane had stalled and it had come down, we would have continued to have radar hits to show that it was in a descent, but it just disappeared.

So was it a bomb? Was it a structural failure? For every theory we've heard, there's a good countertheory. And so I don't think there's really any good answer.

RADDATZ: Let's go to the icing -- the question of icing, which has happened in the past. I believe icing in the engine.

GANYARD: This is very bizarre. The Indonesian Meteorological Service said well we think this is a causal factor. They have no idea. Was icing possible in the area? Sure it was. But these airplanes are designed to fly. They're certified to fly in known icing conditions.

So, maybe who knows. We need to get to the black boxes. We need to get to that wreckage.

RADDATZ: And just very quickly, Steve, if they find that black box, how long before we can figure it out?

GANYARD: It'll probably be a couple of days. When they bring the wreckage itself up there will be clues -- how did the metal break, what sections are there. The black boxes will have the hard evidence, it'll have the cockpit voice recordings. So a couple of days after they pull it up we should have at least an indication of what went wrong.

RADDATZ: Thanks very much, Steve. You cleared up a lot for us.

GANYARD: Thank you.

RADDATZ: Let's get more on this now from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

It is an epidemic, but is it more so than other years?

We see these alarming figures.

DR. ANTHONY FAUCI, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES: Right. Well, you can't really tell at this stage. But certainly, if you look at the trajectory, it's not going to be a good year, it's going to be a bad year.

How bad it's going to be will depend on how it actually evolves, because you're still on the up tip. And if you sort of superimpose it upon other years, you can superimpose it upon a bad year.

Last year was not a bad year. So it's already way ahead of last year, resembling more 2012, 2013, as opposed to 2013-2014.

RADDATZ: One of the things -- one of the things that I read is that during the holiday season, which we're just out of, it -- the flu will usually dip, because you're not around your officemates, children aren't at school, and that that didn't happen this time and now we've got all these people going back to work.

FAUCI: Right.

RADDATZ: So is that an indicator that it will get worse?

FAUCI: You know, Martha, it's possible. The one thing about the flu that you can be sure, it's really unpredictable. So some of the patterns that you see, you can kind of guess what's going to happen.

But at the end of the day, it just devolves and it's difficult to predict.

RADDATZ: And one of the things that is clearly different about this year is -- is the flu shots are not as effective, maybe just 60 percent effective...

FAUCI: No. Let's -- 30 something.

RADDATZ: Thirty something...

FAUCI: And 67 percent aren't...

RADDATZ: -- that affect (INAUDIBLE)...

FAUCI: -- unaffected.

RADDATZ: Unaffected.

FAUCI: Unaffected, right.

RADDATZ: Unaffected. Then even worse than I thought.

FAUCI: Right. Yes.

RADDATZ: So should people still get...

FAUCI: Absolutely.

RADDATZ: -- the shot?

FAUCI: Martha, absolutely, because even though it isn't a good match to what's circulating, with the H3N2, remember, there's an H1N1 and B which matches well with the vaccine, even though that's not the predominant strain. Even though it isn't a good match for H3N2, getting vaccinated can give you cross protection. It could be the difference between getting very sick or just being mildly sick, the difference between being hospitalized or not.

So we strongly recommend people getting vaccinated.

RADDATZ: And -- and tell me quickly how it happened that the -- that the flu shot is for the wrong virus.

FAUCI: Well, flus drift. And at a particular time when you have to make a decision about what to put into the vaccines, you usually do that around February. In February, a certain strain was the strain that was in the community and it was felt that this was going to be the one.

As you got into the end of March, April, when you already started making the vaccine, it started to -- to drift around. And by the time you got to September or October, it drifted to the point where it was 67 percent a non-match.

One thing we should remember that when people get the flu, particularly people at high risk, shouldn't get...

RADDATZ: Children and the elderly...

FAUCI: -- they should get...


FAUCI: -- an anti-viral drug. They should see their physicians, because the anti-influenza drugs can be very, very helpful for people, particularly at high risk.

RADDATZ: Very good advice.

Thanks very much for joining us, Dr. Fauci.

Now coming up, Republicans are ready to take over Congress. We'll talk to three of the party's newest power players.

Plus, Mike Huckabee's big announcement overnight -- what he's saying and what it means for the rest of the potential field in 2016.

Back in just two minutes.


RADDATZ: Now our Closer Look at that big shakeup in Congress -- 74 new members joined the House and Senate Tuesday and Republicans are now in charge.

So what are their plans?

We'll talk to three of the GOP's new power players in a moment.

First, senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, on the changes ahead.


GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST, THIS WEEK: What a big, historic night for the GOP.

JEFF ZELENY, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): That historic Republican landslide in November...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You name it, Republicans won it. The woman group (ph) now the red man group, having lost two of three (INAUDIBLE).

ZELENY: Conservatives surging.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Tomorrow, we go to work to fix a Washington that is out of step, out of touch and out of the times.

ZELENY: But it's not Washington outsiders promising to shake things up.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Republicans will take control of the Senate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: The Republicans will take control of the Senate.

ZELENY: Many Senate rookies are actually Capitol Hill veterans. Six new senators were coming right from the House, which means the Senate will now have 53 former House members in its ranks, the most since 1899.

There are seasoned Washington hands from outside Congress, too, like former Bush administration officials Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So how does it feel?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're having fun.


UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've got a lot to learn. We want to make sure we're on time.

ZELENY: Even newcomers like Joni Ernst of Iowa and Thom Tillis of North Carolina hail from the halls of state government.

But how much will this new Republican Congress actually do?

It means some of those "no" votes may have to become "yes."

(on camera): You've been called one of the new faces of the "hell, no" caucus.

What do you think of that characterization?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would like to say yes. I would like to say yes to a lot of reforms that would lead to smaller, more limited government.

ZELENY (voice-over): Republicans now share the burden of governing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to function. We are. We're -- we're going to pass legislation.

ZELENY: The first test comes quickly in debates over the Keystone Pipeline, President Obama's new Cuba policy and even his strategy toward fighting ISIS.

The big question facing Republicans is how much time they should spend trying to unravel ObamaCare.

SEN. TED CRUZ (R), TEXAS: Americans are suffering because of ObamaCare.

ZELENY: That may be influenced by members of the last freshman class, whose presidential ambitions will cast long shadows over what Congress may or may not get done.

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY), MAJORITY LEADER: I know a lot of people who want to run for president. I serve in a body with a bunch of class presidents.

ZELENY: Those class presidents are now part of the new Washington establishment.

For THIS WEEK, Jeff Zeleny, ABC News, Washington.


RADDATZ: Thanks, Jeff.

We're joined now by three of those new Republican faces on Capitol Hill. On election night, Mia Love became the first black woman elected to Congress as a Republican. She's the former mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah.

Thom Tillis was the speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives before he was elected to the Senate. He defeated incumbent Kay Hagen in one of the highest profile races in November.

And Senator-elect Ben Sasse was a college president in Nebraska before he announced his run. He also served in the Bush administration.

Great to have all of you with us this morning.

And I guess I have to refer to you as Senators-elect, Congresswoman-elect.

Let's start with an interview the new Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, gave. He said, "What the speaker and I are bound and determined to do is to demonstrate to the American people that the Congress is no longer dysfunctional."

Is that possible?

He may be determined. But I want to ask each of you what you'll do toward that?

SENATOR-ELECT BEN SASSE (R), NEBRASKA: Well, I mean, first we have to pass a budget. There's only been one budget passed in the last six years, so obviously, we need to demonstrate an ability to govern.

But we also need to admit that the big challenges facing this country aren't going to be solved in the next 24 months. We need to set the stage for a 2016 presidential election, because there are a lot of principal issues that people want to argue about.

RADDATZ: Senator-elect Tillis?

SENATOR-ELECT THOM TILLIS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I think Leader McConnell was -- is prepared to go back to something as simple as regular order, just -- just to be able to take matters coming from the House and from the Senate and sending them to the president's desk is something we haven't seen for several years.

So I think -- I think by have -- by just focusing on getting Congress back to function, then we can start doing things that will heal the economy and get -- get our -- get our job situation, job creation situation and a number of other things back on track.

RADDATZ: Before I go to you, Mia Love, I want to play something that the president said about the upcoming Congress.



BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I want to work with them. I want to get things done. I don't have another election to run. And I'm going to be as aggressive as I can be in getting legislation passed that I think help move the economy forward and help middle class families.


RADDATZ: And his spokesman also told ABC News that the president is planning big bold, decisive action, that he has zero interest in re-litigating old fights.

Do you believe he wants to get things done and work with this new Congress?

LOVE: Well, he has an opportunity to actually show that he wants to work with Congress. We have faced dysfunction because people on both sides of the aisle have said we want Americans to trust us again.

And we've got that backwards. We have to get -- we have to trust the American people again. Put the decision-making back in their hands so that they can make decisions in their homes, for their own health care, educating their own children and making sure that we're giving -- we're involving them in the political process.

RADDATZ: All three of you have been seen as overcoming the establishment versus the Tea Party but eventually you'll have to do some voting.

So let's take issues that led to the government shutdown in 2013.

Will you support raising the debt ceiling when it comes up in spring (INAUDIBLE)?

SASSE: Obviously a country that functions needs to pay its bills. But we need to have a long-term conversation about actually dealing with all the structural insolvency in our entitlement programs. The debt ceiling is less than a quarter of the real problem.

The unfunded obligations in our entitlement programs are three and four times --


RADDATZ: So it sounds like you would vote for it.

SASSE: As a part of a down payment on a long-term reform, absolutely.

RADDATZ: Senator?

TILLIS: Well, I agree with Ben. We've got to focus on the other -- the financial underpinnings that we have to take care of; the debt ceiling's just a part of that, as Ben said.

So we would, but I think we're also trying to focus on something that's a credible strategy for retiring the debt and getting our budget, getting our finances back in order.

RADDATZ: And how about ObamaCare?

LOVE: We have to again get the decision-making back in the hands of the American people and that means doing everything we can to change the current policy, the current ACA policy.

RADDATZ: So Ted Cruz says he wants Republicans exactly to do that, do everything humanly possible to stop ObamaCare?

LOVE: Look, I was elected by my districts to make sure that we get the decision-making back in their hands. And I have said that I was going to do everything I can to repeal and replace it with something that is functional and get -- with broad health care reforms, free market health care reforms. And that's exactly what I'm going to do.

RADDATZ: Senator Tillis, I want to turn to 2016. Your fellow freshman, Cory Gardner, said this. We have a very limited timeframe in 2015 to shore up the brand of what Republicans are going into 2016.

What's the most important thing you can do in Congress to get a Republican president elected?

TILLIS: I think if the American people confidence that Congress will work again, that we will send measures to the president's desk that he will sign into law, whether it's the XL Pipeline, whether it's regulatory reform, a number of things that we can do to prove that we can actually function and produce positive results for the American people.

RADDATZ: And Congresswoman-Elect Love, I want to turn to you on this. I'm sure you've been following the story involving one of your House leaders this week, Steve Scalise, who spoke to a white supremacist group in 2002.

What were your first thoughts?

LOVE: My first thoughts of -- this is 12 years ago. It's interesting that it's coming up now. That was -- I found that really interesting.

These groups are awful. And the last thing I want to do is give them any sort of publicity or credibility and I can say, as far as I'm concerned, with Representative Scalise, he has been absolutely wonderful to work with. He's been very helpful for me and he has had the support of his colleagues.

RADDATZ: Does it hurt the image of the Republican Party?

And should he remain in leadership?

LOVE: I believe he should remain in leadership. There's one quality that he has that I think is very important in leadership and that's humility. And he's actually shown that in this case. And he's apologized and I think that we need to move on and get the work of the American people done.

RADDATZ: And Senator-Elect Sasse, I want to end here with you. You know what the approval rate is for Congress: 77 percent disapproval and 20 percent approval in the latest ABC News poll.

Where do you predict that will be at the end of your term?

SASSE: I have no idea. But when you listen to Nebraska voters and workers, part of the disapproval is because they think that the problems in this country are so much bigger than Republican versus Democrat. Our national media conversations love this kind of seesaw game of politics.

The American people don't think the future of their kids are a game. They want a Washington that's more humble, that focused on a more important but more limited set of things, because they care about their future we're building for their kids.

RADDATZ: We wish you all luck in the coming year. Thanks, everyone.

Coming up, what Mike Huckabee's announcement means for 2016.

Plus why President Obama says his relationship with Republicans will be different this time around.






MIKE HUCKABEE, FOX NEWS HOST (voice-over): There's been a great deal of speculation as to whether I would run for president. And if I were willing to absolutely rule that out, I could keep doing this show. But I can't make such a declaration.

RADDATZ (voice-over): Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee last night on FOX News revealing that he's thinking about a run in 2016.

Let's bring in the roundtable, Robert Costa from "The Washington Post;" Greta van Susteren from FOX News; television and radio host Tavis Smiley, author of "Death of a King: The Real Story of Dr. Martin Luther King's Final Year" and Margaret Hoover, CNN contributor and author of "American Individualism: How a New Generation of Conservatives Can Save the Republican Party."

And, Greta, I have to talk with you --


RADDATZ: Was Mike Huckabee sort of pushed out?

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: Oh, no, no, no. Not at all. Actually, I don't think that at all. He's very -- well, first of all, I don't have the inside scoop on that. I'm not in management. I'm labor.

But I will tell you that I do know this: he's extremely well liked by his colleagues, extremely well liked by his colleagues. And his show is successful. What I do think is that FOX News has taken a very hard line on people who are -- who might be running. As he said last night in his statement, when he left the network, he said that he could make up his mind.

So he's leaving. I would -- so I would not be surprised if he's running. He hasn't committed financial suicide. FOX pays quite well and they were quite happy with him.

So while I don't have the inside scoop, my guess is that he is running and my guess is that he was not pushed out because of his success at the network and the fact that people just like him.

RADDATZ: She made that very clear, what she thinks, doesn't she, Margaret? I want to turn to you.

An Iowa Senate exit poll -- it was Republicans -- who do you want to be the GOP 2016 nominee?

Huckabee, 19 percent, topping the list; Rick Perry 17 percent, Jeb Bush 14 percent, Rand Paul 14 percent, Chris Christie 12 percent.

So what happens if Huckabee gets in?

MARGARET HOOVER, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: If Huckabee gets in, you have a fight in the aisle of Republican primary caucuses, for Republican caucuses, over who is going to solidify the evangelical base of that portion of the electorate.

If you have Huckabee in and Santorum in and some of these others who really cater to the right wing of the Republican caucuses in Iowa, suddenly you may have a fight over the Right and allow for a centrist to come up through the center, not dissimilarly from how George W. Bush did in 2000.

What I think it does is potentially divide the conservative vote and actually make way for a center right candidate to actually make some headway in Iowa for the first time, a Jeb Bush or a Chris Christie.

RADDATZ: Tavis, you're nodding your head there in agreement?

TAVIS SMILEY, PBS: Well, I was listening because it occurs to me that Mike Huckabee is, since this is Sunday (INAUDIBLE) is an ordained minister and there's a Bible verse that I'm fond of that says that "the people perish where there is no vision." Without a vision, the people perish.

If I can tweak that bit, without a vision, the party will perish and it doesn't matter whether it's Jeb Bush or Mike Huckabee. If you don't have a vision how to expand this party in the most multicultural, multiracial, multiethnic America ever, it's not going to happen.

So you can win these local races; you can win governorships; you can win congressional seats. You can't win the big one in 2016 if you can't expand the base of the party. I will tell you this: Jeb Bush is dangerous because he can expand that vote, whether the expanding party is concerned. We all know and Mike Huckabee in 2008, I moderated two presidential debates in the primaries for my network, PBS.

The Democrats all measured Howard University in Washington. They all showed up. Republicans were invited to join us at Morgan State in Baltimore. The top three runners at the time wouldn't come. John McCain didn't come; Mitt Romney didn't come; Fred Thompson wouldn't come. The first one to RSVP was Mike Huckabee.

So I think he gets it and has an opportunity to expand --


RADDATZ: Sounds like he definitely gets it.

And I want to turn to you, Robert, I do want to point out that you're a former this week in --




RADDATZ: You have come a long way.

Now Jeb Bush resigned from corporate and non-profit boards this week. But he's not showing up at the big event in Iowa.

What do you make of what's happening?

What are people telling you?

Because I know you have a lot of great sources now.

COSTA: Well, I spoke to Representative Steve King, who's hosting this confab in Des Moines in late January. And he said he did invite Governor Bush, but Governor Bush got back to him through emissaries, didn't give Representative King a call and I think it really sent a signal about how Bush may run his campaign.

King, of course, is an immigration headliner; Bush is not. Bush may look to avoid Iowa. If Huckabee's coming in, as Margaret said, a lot of conservatives are crowding that space. Maybe Jeb looks to New Hampshire, goes into Florida.

But Huckabee, he has accepted Representative King's invitation. And you're going to see others like Chris Christie, who's appearing at that event. They're really looking to King as a power broker and someone they're going to court.

But Iowa, if it becomes really a mess, maybe the race becomes a little more extended. And I think Huckabee's play -- I talked to his advisers last night on the phone -- maybe he could win Iowa just like he did in 2008. Doesn't do so well in New Hampshire, but he comes in to South Carolina as another conservative state.

RADDATZ: Greta, any surprises out there, anybody who will get in or who won't get in?

VAN SUSTEREN: I actually think the big surprise is going to be the Democratic side of the ledger, whether or not former secretary of state Hillary Clinton runs.

I'm actually not convinced -- I'm not convinced she's going to run and I think the big sleeper candidate is actually going to be Governor Martin O'Malley of Maryland. I realize that the governorship was lost and that the Republicans in Maryland this last run that -- last run.

But whoever takes Iowa -- and if you look at 2008, Huckabee took it for the Republicans; 2012, Santorum. It really takes someone who's going to go there and knock on the doors. I think that's what we have to keep our eye on.

And Governor Martin O'Malley, he's been there a number of times. He's a knock-on-the-door type candidate. He's not the -- so I think that he may be a sleeper.

RADDATZ: Let's switch up to Capitol Hill from the White House. We're probably getting a little ahead of ourselves on that.

You heard the Republican panel; we just had the new members.

Does that encourage you, that they can get rid of the dysfunction?

HOOVER: It does on the one hand. And they do. There is really a new possibility here with a Republican Senate, a Republican legislature. The most productive times legislatively in our country have been when you have had a unified body in the legislature and the opposite party in the executive branch.

I'd like to get back to something Tavis said. I think for leadership in the Republican Party, what we really need is Republicans who are willing to disavow the worst traditions in American history and really align themselves with the best traditions in the Republican Party. And that means building a base and building a party that represents the history of the Republican Party -- (INAUDIBLE). Ed Brooke was the first African American senator elected popularly to the United States Senate.

And Republicans always represented the first in every minority group in the Senate -- women, African Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans. This is a party that has in its DNA the ability to build out beyond its base. And we should draw on that history to build in the 21st century.

SMILEY: Very quickly, Margaret, I totally agree with everything you basically said except that the party missed an opportunity to do just what you said when Mr. Scalise got in trouble. And they rallied around him rather than condemn what he did. They missed a moment to do that, number one.

Number two, to, Martha, to your question about whether or not this dysfunction can stop, it depends on three things. Number one, Mitch McConnell the leader is the same guy who, a few years ago, said his number one job was to defeat Barack Obama. If that attitude persists, nothing is going to happen, number one.

Number two, I'm concerned about how the agenda gets hijacked as your piece reported earlier, by these Republicans in the Senate who have presidential aspirations and how that might impact at the game --

RADDATZ: I want to turn to Robert, the objective reporter here.

And again, you have been working your sources on the Hill and talking to a lot of officials. I want to quickly touch on Scalise and whether that has a lasting -- whether that has legs.

COSTA: Speaking of Scalise's allies and his aides in the last couple days, you really feel, because he has expressed regret about the event in 2002 and about his appearance, they believe he will be able to move on. And they think Scalise, because he's number three; he's not number one or number two, he's not going to be a total distraction for the party.

And I think because he got out early and expressed that -- issued that statement, he'll be OK.


RADDATZ: And Greta, you think he's a distraction?

VAN SUSTEREN: I think he's a distraction but I think this is a huge missed opportunity for the Republican Party.

If the Republican Party want to send a message out there, and I don't know whether it's fair to Congressman Scalise or not fair to him, whatever, but associating with David Duke is grossly unwise.

There's no secret who David Duke is. I realize it's 12 years ago; he says he was there. Some people say he wasn't there. I don't know what that is. But if you want to send a messages to the American people, Republicans and Democrats, this would have been the opportunity to say he should step aside, whether it's fair or not, and send a message that we're not going to have this distraction. We really do want to have everybody on board.


SMILEY: The problem is Representative Love a moment ago said he had humility and he apologized. He did that.

The question is whether or not you knew. And to say that you didn't know -- nobody --


SMILEY: -- but to stand behind -- I agree, Greta -- but to -- I agree.


SMILEY: -- but to stand behind this one guy, risking the party, expanding its base, that's --


VAN SUSTEREN: So many people who are saying so many awful things, Democrats, Republicans --


HOOVER: What he didn't have was the moral courage to disavow that political ideology, even in 1998, not just 2002. It was back in 1998 where he said I'm a lot like David Duke; I just don't have the baggage.

That's the problem, is the moral courage --


HOOVER: -- heinous political ideologies. And that plagues the Republican Party. That is not good.


VAN SUSTEREN: And the moral courage would be to step down because it sends a very bad message to the American people.

And I also would think there are a lot of people on the Democratic side of the aisle could likewise send a message, too. This is an equal opportunity disgrace with politicians.

RADDATZ: And I should point out, Greta, you're a reporter as well, an objective reporter.

Robert, I want to end with you about this week. We're going into this very important week.

What do they have to do in this week?

COSTA: Really keep an eye on the new Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell. He's trying to take the reins of the party and show on health care, on trade and numerous other issues that the party ahead of 2016 can govern responsibly, move away from the shutdown path and really cast a new image for the party.

And I think that's the goal with a lot of legislation. They're going to be trying to pass in both chambers.

RADDATZ: And the next year? Predictions?

COSTA: In 2016, I think you're going to see a crowded field, one of the biggest fields in a long time. And I think you're going to see Congress really work with the presidential candidates to try to come up with a coherent agenda.

RADDATZ: OK. Thanks to all of you on this.

Coming up, remembering former New York Governor Mario Cuomo, who died this week at age 82. The Liberal Lion, also inspiring our "Powerhouse Puzzler." Here's the question.

During his 1982 campaign, Governor Cuomo appeared right here on THIS WEEK with his Republican opponent.

Can you name him?

Back in just one minute with the answer.




RADDATZ: So who was Mario Cuomo's Republican opponent in the 1982 New York Gubernatorial race? Time to reveal those white boards.

SMILEY: I thought it was maybe Jacob Javits. I know that's probably wrong.

RADDATZ: Kerry (ph).

Jomato Pataki (ph).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: All of us are wrong.

RADDATZ: All of you, all of you are wrong.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There are not many memorable New York Republicans.

RADDATZ: The answer is Lewis Lehrman. There he is on the show, this show, back in October of 1982.

And one of Mario Cuomo's most enduring legacies is the speech he delivered two years after that appearance on This Week, the keynote at the 1984 Democratic convention. Democrats were preparing to face off against Ronald Reagan who was running for reelection.


MARIO CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK: And the president is right, in many ways we are a shining city on a hill, but the hard truth is that not everyone is sharing in this city's splendor and glory. A shining city is perhaps all the president sees from the portico of the White House and the veranda of his ranch, where everyone seems to be doing well. But there's another city, there's another part to the shining city, the part where some people can't pay their mortgages and most young people can't afford one, where students can't afford the education they need and middle class parents watch the dreams they hold for their children evaporate.

Mr. President, you ought to know that this nation is more a tale of two cities than it is just a shining city on a hill.


RADDATZ: And we're back now with the roundtable.

Tavis, you pointed out that Cuomo did not run from who he was.

SMILEY: He didn't. And it's hard to find persons today that will stand up for what they believe in terms of their liberal policies, their progressive beliefs. And he never backed away from that. And that speech one of the best ever. I remember watching it and getting goose bumps at the end and getting goosebumps now.

But what really strikes me very quickly is that he was talking then, Martha, about income inequality and poverty. And that speech now is as relevant today as it ever was.

RADDATZ: Greta, thoughts.

VAN SUSTEREN: You know, I never knew Governor Cuomo, but I will say one thing is that I do know his two sons, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Chris Cuomo who used to be one of your colleagues, Martha. And to the extent that we can judge Governor Mario Cuomo by his two sons he's got two really good sons.

I don't know his daughters, but he's got two really decent sons and I think that's a credit to him.

RADDATZ: That's a good marker, that's a very good marker and a wonderful legacy.

Cuomo had a famous saying that you included in your piece this week Robert, "you campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose." That still resonates.

COSTA: So true. So many members of my generation who had never knew Cuomo, but minutes after he died they were sharing that speech on YouTube, because in today's generation of politics we really don't see that kind of passion, that kind of intellectual heft from our politicians. I think it still impresses 30 years later.

RADDATZ: And Margaret, you may not agree with his politics, but Republicans had a great deal of respect for him.

HOOVER: Rudy Giuliani, Governor Pataki, all these New York Republicans...

RADDATZ: All the answers to our whiteboard...

HOOVER: Even though they disagree with him on a key philosophical level, he did codify the philosophical opposition to Reagan in the 1980s and he was a principled leaders and a principled governor and people respect that contribution.

Remarkably, I think the reason this all went viral is because it almost is more resonate today -- I mean, Reagan went on to win almost 50 states, depending on who you ask Bob Bethel, Mondale's campaign manager says 50 states. It really wasn't a speech that codifies the feeling of the American public at the time, but certainly does today.

RADDATZ: And wonderful reminder of a very powerful and...

HOOVER: ...great man.

RADDATZ: Thanks everyone.

Up next, we kick off our special coverage of an historic week for U.S. troops in Afghanistan after this from our ABC stations.


RADDATZ: This Week marks what the U.S. calls the official end of combat operations in Afghanistan, a ceremony in Kabul with the general in charge of troops in Afghanistan John Campbell handing over the responsibility to the Afghans. But well over 10,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan under the commander of General Campbell.


RADDATZ: Few Americans know the country better than John Campbell.

I have covered his deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan...

GEN. JOHN CAMPBELL, U.S. ARMY: ...on top that hilltop is Pakistan.

RADDATZ: He led combat teams early on in the wars. He was there during the so-called surge in Afghanistan when U.S. forces were at their peak with 100,000 troops in the country.

CAMPBELL: We've seen an uptick in the IEDs, in the indirect fire, complex attacks. But I think that's to be expected. I mean, the enemy knows that we're going to surge our forces in.

RADDATZ: And now he is back with those 10,500 U.S. troops still on the ground with memories still searing of the more than 2,000 who have died since 2001.

I attended many of those memorial services with General Campbell over the years. He carries cards with each of the names of those lost under his command.

CAMPBELL: From the 101st we've lost 27.

We're about 76 right now.

We've lost 96 heroes.

RADDATZ: For the general, the army is family. His son is a soldier, too, with service in Afghanistan just like his dad.

CAMPBELL: What do you tell your son when he says I want to serve? You know, I'm very proud of him, but I'm proud of all these guys.

Our country is just so very -- so very fortunate that we have great men and women that want to continue to do this.


RADDATZ: And joining us now live from Kabul is General John Campbell. Good morning, General Campbell.

I want to start with what those U.S. troops who are remaining in Afghanistan will be doing. I know it's training and assisting the Afghan forces, but won't they also be conducting raids?

CAMPBELL: Well, good to see you, Martha. Thanks.

Yes, we have two early missions here: train, advise and assist at the core level and also at the ministry level. We'll do train, advise and assist with our special operating forces. And then we still have a U.S. counterterrorism mission. So our soldiers will continue at the special operating forces to do missions at work, train, advise and assist with them.

RADDATZ: So, U.S. forces, especially those special operators, could see more combat?

CAMPBELL: Well, they're in a train, advise, assist role. And we always have the right for self-protection, but they'll be along with our Afghan partners to a certain point to continue to help to build the special operating capability, which is pretty good right now. We'll continue to build that here through 2015.

RADDATZ: I want to bring your attention to an ABC poll released just this morning that says only 38 percent of Americans think the war was worth fighting, 56 percent say it was not.

CAMPBELL: Yes, I'm in the camp that it was well worth fighting. It continues to be very important that we have a presence here in Afghanistan.

If you think about 9/11, the reason we came here, the front line of defense for Afghanistan and there hasn't been another 9/11 since we've been here I think that says quite a bit.

There are people out here that continue to want to harm Americans, harm people in Europe. And by having a presence here continue to apply pressure I think that's good news, bad news for the terrorists that want to do that.

So, if you take a look at any metric in Afghanistan, whether it's roads, it's schools, the number of females in the work force, the life expectancy now, it's gone up incredibly in the last 13 years.

So I think our soldiers, our airmen, sailors, marines ought to be very, very proud of what they've done in the last 13 years.

RADDATZ: General Campbell, there is evidence, particularly around Kabul, there have been massive civilian casualties in Kabul. The Taliban has attacked government buildings. They've attacked residents. They've attacked westerners. That seems to be a pretty bad sign.

CAMPBELL: Yeah, I wouldn't use the word massive, Martha. I don't see massive casualties inside of Kabul.

The high profile attacks have gone up here the last three or four weeks. These are one or two people, suicide vests, attacking NGOs, attacking soft targets. So they have continued to try to do that.

They're trying to show they're still relevant, because they didn't hold terrain during the fighting season. Their leadership has fractured.

So they are attacking soft targets here in Kabul that raise high profile attacks, but I wouldn't say massive casualties.

And again, the Afghan security forces continue to do pretty well, finding a very small magnetic ID they put on a bus, finding one suicide bomber that comes inside a city of 3.3 million is very, very tough. But I think they continue to work at that very hard and we'll continue to be partnered up with them.

RADDATZ: Thanks, very much, General Campbell, for joining us.

Now we turn to the homefront. Veterans returning from the front lines are facing a sad and stunning statistic. By one estimate, nearly 50,000 veterans will experience homelessness each year. But there are new efforts to help vets who have fallen through the cracks. And just this week, a sign of progress. Here's ABC's Bob Woodruff.



BOB WOODRUFF, ABC NEWS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Last month in downtown New Orleans, U.S. Army vet Darren Dalpias (ph) finally found a home. He has been homeless for over 10 years, living in a tent in the woods and on the streets.

DALPIAS: I've got windows. Look at the view.

WOODRUFF (on camera): Wow!

DALPIAS: Oh, my goodness, for real?

This is all for me?

WOODRUFF (voice-over): But this past holiday, he and 25 other homeless vets got address of their own, thanks to the work of a non-profit, Unity.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: These are permanent apartments where each tenant has a lease and they can live here for the rest of their lives.

WOODRUFF: This week, New Orleans will announce that it has successfully met its goal and housed all 193 of its homeless veterans.

DALPIAS: You are a bunch of angels is what you are.

WOODRUFF: One of the architects behind the New Orleans success is Roseanne Haggerty, who has been working on homelessness for 30 years. And she believes that veterans' homelessness can be fixed nationwide.

We talked to her in New York.

(on camera): New York still has a problem with veterans that are homeless?

ROSEANNE HAGGERTY, FOUNDER, COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS: Yes, about 900 veterans are homeless in New York.



HAGGERTY: So we know their nine -- we know their names and we're on a course to get that solved.

It's basically smart problem-solving. If you were in business, you would figure out who's the customer, what do we know about them?

It's bringing that kind of discipline to solving a complex social problem.

WOODRUFF (voice-over): There have been big promises before.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: President Obama and I are personally committed to ending homelessness among veterans.

WOODRUFF: And missed deadlines, but also success stories.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How are you doing?

WOODRUFF: Phoenix announced in 2013 it had successfully ended chronic homelessness among vets.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We've made a concerted effort the last couple of years to rapidly rehouse as many veterans as possible.

WOODRUFF: So why are veterans at risk for homelessness?

Experts point to a variety of factors, like strained relationships with friends and family, and the difficulty vets can have landing jobs after coming home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I was homeless because I never fit in nowhere. And I just kept moving.

HAGGERTY: That awareness of PTSD, of the -- the hidden injuries of war and how that can play out in -- in people's losses, family and support, that, I think, sensitized the country.

WOODRUFF: Los Angeles is home to some of the highest numbers of veteran homeless, including many Vietnam vets, a problem I saw firsthand in the city's notorious Skid Row. Still, nationally, the number of homeless veterans has dropped by about 33 percent in the last four years, largely because the VA is working closely with local non-profit organizations.

But there's still work to be done for those who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan. In the last four years, I have found them outside, across the country, living in their cars.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I use this side to sleep on.

WOODRUFF: Or sleeping on the benches.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Pretty much like that.

WOODRUFF: And the worst might still be to come for those more recent vets. Homelessness among Vietnam veterans did not emerge as a major issue until seven years after the war ended. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans Association takes calls from desperate veterans every week.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I was calling to talk to somebody about...

WOODRUFF: And passes on the information to the VA.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Now that we're winding down, they're getting out and they're coming home. And many of them are doing well, but some of them are struggling. And we've got to be there for them and have their back when they're at that tough spot.

WOODRUFF: A critical effort to make sure everyone who put their lives on the line for all of us have a home to come back to.




RADDATZ: And Bob is here with us now, along with Phil Klay, a Marine Corps veteran who served in Iraq and is the author of the remarkable book, "Redeployment."

Welcome to you both.

And Bob, I want to start with you.

As we go forward, and you mentioned that it could be seven years out, but certainly since the war began, we're already there.

WOODRUFF: Yes, well, we have -- that's true. It's seven years. But when those that come back from the last deployment, let's make sure that they get the kind of attention and help that they do. Because that's the problem. It's true, the numbers have gone down in the last four years. What you see for the first time for all veterans, homelessness under 50 percent, 50,000, for the -- for the first time.

But the big thing is to not to have the same thing happen with Iraq and Afghanistan vets as it did with Vietnam, which just means let's do it, otherwise, we're going to see this economy just slaughtered again in the future if we don't do it now and the people (INAUDIBLE)...


WOODRUFF: -- living on the streets.

RADDATZ: -- and, Phil, you have written a lot about this. Your -- your book is remarkable. It is a piece of fiction -- PHIL KLAY, AUTHOR, "REDEPLOYMENT": Right.

RADDATZ: -- but very real. But you've also wrote -- written a very powerful op-ed in the "Wall Street Journal" that's called "Treat Us with Respect, Not Pity."

So taking that into account, how do you help these veterans?

How do you approach this?

KLAY: Well, I think there's always a -- a balance between acknowledging and thinking about the very real problems that veterans often face, particularly in that transition period. And realizing that when you're talking about the veteran population, you're often talking about people with a lot of potential.

You know, if you look back in history, when we invest in veterans, it's really good for us as a country. You're talking about people who often signed up to do a very hard difficult job out of a sense of idealism.

And so idealism.

And so, you know, and that continues once they, you know, go back into the civilian sphere. But during that transition period, people can un -- face a lot of difficulties, which is why I think it's important to have the kind of networks in place to support them through that.

RADDATZ: And -- but you don't want everyone looking at -- at the military as all heroes or certainly all victims. And I hear the same thing.

But, Bob, this is, particularly PTSD, and -- and brain injury are a very real problem. You, through your wonderful foundation with your wife Lee, The Bob Woodruff Foundation, have helped so many of the wounded.

I -- I will disclose that I'm on the board of that, as well.

WOODRUFF: Yes, you are.

RADDATZ: But -- but how have you approached that, taking in -- into consideration what Phil there said?

WOODRUFF: Well, a couple of -- absolutely, they need -- they need dignity. And we also need to tell people that it's more like 25 percent have been affected by these kinds of issues when they come back, you know, maybe 75 percent of them are actually very good and -- and we know that companies that have hired them have been incredibly impressed with how well the veterans do when they come back, because they've got discipline, they've got world experience, all of this. And they're generally older when they go to their first job in a company. So they've been really, in some ways, successful once they get to those companies. So that's exactly that. Don't make it Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder can't -- take out the disorder and -- and -- and treat them that way and they're good.

RADDATZ: So, Phil, what really worries me going forward is, you know, we just talked to General Campbell. We still have 10,500 people there. But I don't think people are thinking about that at all.

So what worries me is that it's -- it's going to be further in the background...

KLAY: Right.

RADDATZ: -- of this -- of the civilian population. And there's got to be some way to bridge that gap. The military, too. The military tends to say nobody understands us, we'll -- we'll stay over here and you guys over there.

KLAY: Right. Absolutely. And -- and, you know, that disconnect was already very present when I came back from Iraq in 2008, right. And it only, you know, it only continues to widen.

I think we don't know what to make of Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly as, you know, the situation continues overseas. And -- and so we often don't know what to make of our veterans or how to feel about them.

And I think, you know, for me, oftentimes, it's not so much whether someone is -- has a particular political agenda or policy proposal that I agreed with, but whether I think that somebody is seriously engaged with the issue, what it means to be a veteran, what that experience might be like instead of, you know, blanketing them into this kind of stereotype of you're either a hero or you're some kind of victim who, you know, is possibly (INAUDIBLE).

RADDATZ: Very, very quickly, Phil, what would you want people to say to you, as a veteran, or they should say to other people?

KLAY: I -- I mean I just want to have conversation, right?

There's no one thing. It's more about where what you're saying is coming from than any one catchphrase.

RADDATZ: OK, there's so much to both of you and thank you for all your work...

KLAY: Thanks, Martha.

RADDATZ: -- Bob Woodruff, on this issue.

And we end with some good news. The Pentagon did not release any names of service members killed this week in Afghanistan or Iraq.

That's all for us today.

Thanks for sharing part of your Sunday with us.

Check out "WORLD NEWS TONIGHT" and we'll see you back here next week.

Have a great day.

Directly below is the full interview with Cmdr. Steven Foley. Some portions did not air. It is a rush transcript and may contain errors.

RADDATZ: Commander Foley, can you tell us whether your ship has provided any of the sonar hits that have found these large objects?

FOLEY: First of all, I want to thank you, Martha, for having me on your show, and I can’t express enough that our thoughts and prayers are with families of (inaudible) in this time of grief.

USS Sampson is a (inaudible) Arleigh Burke class guided missile destroyer, and we have two MH 60 helicopters on board, as well as (inaudible) and sonar sweep, the system of search (ph) chopper (ph). And what specific capabilities used are based on the search requirements and the coordination with the Indonesian authorities.

RADDATZ: But has the USS Sampson found any of those pieces using your sonar?

FOLEY: They have not. What we have found is obviously we’ve found remains and we’ve found pieces of debris from aircraft that were floating on the surface.

RADDATZ: The Indonesians this morning are saying what they have found, they believe is what they call the head and the tale of the airplane. Have you heard the same? And that would truly be significant.

FOLEY: I have not heard the same. I would have to refer you to the Indonesian authorities for further information regarding that. I simply don’t know.

RADDATZ: No, as you mentioned, the helicopters you have on your ship have some of the most sophisticated radar in the world, sonar in the world, rather, those anti-submarine helicopters. Are you using those to try to locate the pingers on the black boxes?

FOLEY: We’re using the ships (ph) to the locate the black box, and the helicopters to scan the horizon for debris.

RADDATZ: And why wouldn’t you be using those helicopters with that sophisticated sonar to try to find the pingers?

FOLEY: The helicopters aren’t designed for that capability in locating the black box pinger.

RADDATZ: So tell us a little bit about what’s going on on your ship this morning.

FOLEY: We arrived on station on the morning of December 30, and with our ship (inaudible) helicopter squadron, both of which are capable of search and rescue. In addition, we have two seventy-meter rigid-hull inflatable boat, which we call RIB (ph), and we’ve been using these in our efforts as well.

We’ve been searching using lookouts, using optical search equipment, and scanning the horizon and using our helicopters in tandem to search a wide area. The weather has been a little rough, with scattered thunderstorms. The seas (ph) have been (ph) about two to four feet, increasing to about four to six feet when the rainfalls come in. The winds are about 15 to 20 knots out of the east – correction, out of the west. And what we’ve been doing is we’ve been operating in three specified areas that the Indonesian authorities have assigned to us. And you have to remember, this is their search effort, and we’re here to assist.

RADDATZ: And you have heard nothing from that pinger.

FOLEY: I have heard nothing. Although we’ve searched quite an extensive area, I have not heard anything yet.

RADDATZ: And your ship would certainly be part of the search for those pingers, for that black box.

FOLEY: That is correct, Martha.

RADDATZ: What does it tell you that you haven’t heard anything so far? Do you think you’re too far away from it? Might it not be operational?