BRIAN LAMB: Sharyl Attkisson, when did you decide to become a journalist?
SHARYL ATTKISSON: Probably the idea came to me in college when you had to pick a major. I think it was my first or second year. And somebody suggested to me that she was going to go into journalism, and I'd really never heard of that as a profession. But when she explained to me what it was and I realized I'd always loved to write, I figured I would go that route.
LAMB: When did you get into television?
ATTKISSON: Well, I went to a great journalism school at University of Florida, and they make you work at the television station on campus. So probably about three and a half years into college I was doing television news reporting there.
LAMB: Did you have, in those early days, a place you wanted to end up?
ATTKISSON: Yes. My goal at the time was, I thought if I worked at a very good medium sized market in a good news market I'd be happy. And I was doing that when I was about 25.
LAMB: Where?
ATTKISSON: Tampa, Florida. I was on top of the world. Great news market, great photographers, a lot of good news happenings. They have federal courts, lot of sort of accidents and disasters and hurricanes, good crime news. So I really got my reporting chops working in Tampa.
LAMB: When did you change your goal?
ATTKISSON: I'm not sure I ever had another goal. I think that when I'd worked in Tampa three to four years and it became kind of easy - and I enjoyed it very much - I started getting phone calls with other job opportunities. And CNN was the one that really caught my eye when the time came. So I went to CNN and became an anchor about, I think, a couple of months before Iraq invaded Kuwait. So I ended up being really lucky to be at CNN during a time when a time when it was just the heyday for CNN. Got a lot of good reporting and anchoring experience there.
LAMB: What happened to you when you became nationally known?
ATTKISSON: Wow. I guess you get - more opportunities come. You know it sort of feeds upon itself. So I did get noticed during Iraq war one by the networks who came calling with opportunities there. But more importantly, I really began to report on the national and international stage. When you're local news, all you care about is what the mayor's doing, you know, what's going on in the county that you're in, and then perhaps the state. Going to CNN and suddenly reporting on, you know, national and international events was, you know, a huge learning experience, completely different. And I enjoyed it very much. But it opened up this whole new idea that I could be reporting on issues of national and world interest and importance.
LAMB: First time I really remember seeing a lot of you was in the middle of the night.
ATTKISSON: That's right.
LAMB: When did that happen?
ATTKISSON: In - when I left CNN, the opening that CBS wanted to use me for - I went to CBS New York - was the overnight show at a time when the overnights were in sort of heated pitched battles. We were - we were broadcasting at least four hours live in the middle of the night. And taken for several hours before that and after it - it was a long, difficult, fun job. A lot live interviews and a lot of live reporting. So a lot of people who were up in the middle of the night, new moms, doctors who were working in the middle of the night, those kind of people did catch us on Up To The Minute. My partner was Troy Roberts on that program. And I did that for a year before moving here to Washington for CBS.
LAMB: And why did you move here?
ATTKISSON: I never intended to stay on the overnights. There was an agreement that I would do that for one year sort of to get my foot in the door and learn how CBS works. And I think I never really intended to stay on the anchor desk full time. And the opportunity came for me either to stay in New York and do some reporting and anchoring or move overseas or come to Washington. And I came here - I had never really contemplated living in Washington. And it just seemed like the place to be. And I was able to come here as a Washington-based correspondent.
LAMB: Some of the stuff you've done on CBS steps on toes.
ATTKISSON: Yes, it definitely does. Absolutely.
LAMB: How did you get to that job?
ATTKISSON: I think in general, in the beginning, I really had to fight my way on the air, because we had a lot of correspondents, excellent correspondents here, only so much time in the broadcast for stories. I didn't have a specific beat. And it became clear to me that I would have to carve out a niche, find an area of reporting, or report on a topic in a way that someone else had not yet done. Which suits me perfectly, because I really do love to dig and ask that question that maybe some other people seem to leave unanswered. I really will follow through to the bitter end till there's an answer to be found. After doing that long enough, I broke enough stories or I found my way into enough of a value that I could work my way on the air at CBS. And ultimately they decided that that was my strength, doing sort of the in depth and investigative reporting and trying to do the stories that do step on toes.
LAMB: Here's one from March 17. It's all about Congressman John Murtha, from Pennsylvania. Let's watch.
ATTKISSON: ATTKISSON: Under fire for his earmarking practices, Congressman John Murtha wouldn't grant us an interview today, but did have something to show us.
JOHN MURTHA: You know what that is? That's the constitution of the United States. What it says is "The Congress of the United States appropriates the money." Got that?
ATTKISSON: What he means is Congress gets to decide how tax dollars are spent. But more specifically, Murtha often gets to decide. As head of the Defense Spending Committee, he has the power to steer hundreds of million of tax dollars in earmarks to companies of his choice.
But now the FBI is asking whether those who have benefited from Murtha's earmarks have made improper donations to his political campaigns.
There's been a flurry of activity. Agents raided lobby firm PMA, started by a Capitol Hill staffer who worked closely with Murtha. In Murtha's home town, Johnstown, Pennsylvania, subpoenas for concurrent technologies and FBI raids on Kuchera Defense Systems and a game ranch owned by Kuchera CEO, site of a Murtha fund raiser. CBS News has learned that federal agents are also looking into a Murtha-backed research firm, Electro - Optics Center. According a source interviewed by the FBI, in one year the center sought $120 million in earmarks directly through Murtha's office and managers urged employees to donate to Murtha so the center would get favorable treatment. We found at least six donors linked to the center gave to Murtha on the same day last year just days before earmarks were decided.
Representative Jeff Flake, who's against earmarks of any kind, is calling for an ethics investigation and says it could dwarf the last lobby mess to hit Washington.
This is bigger than the Abramoff Scandal.
FLAKE: In terms of contributions and circular fund raising and the involvement of members, it's much bigger, much bigger.
ATTKISSON: In the coming weeks, Murtha will help divvy up new defense earmarks.
MURTHA: We decide where it goes. That's exactly right.
ATTKISSON: Though he wouldn't talk with us about the FBI investigation, his office has said he's done nothing wrong and there's no reason to believe he is a target.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington.END VIDEO
LAMB: Tell us about how that all came together. When did it start for you?
ATTKISSON: Well, the investigative unit at CBS, which is sort of a parallel unit, works out of New York with Keith Summa, Armen Keteyian, we had all been discussing, among many other stories, the Murtha story and FBI investigation surrounding a lot of entities around him for quite some time. I've reported on Murtha before. We got the sense through sources and other information that this is sort of building, there have been raids in the past couple of months, and we know that this is - there's activity going on. So we had decided to pursue a story. And our bosses knew we were working on it, and on that particular day said go ahead and do a Murtha piece, let's get going.
LAMB: What were the circumstances in the Rayburn House office building when he held up the little red constitution?
ATTKISSON: Well, I've asked him for interviews many times, never gotten an interview with him. And on this particular day he wouldn't do an interview. We had asked the day before when we knew we were going to be doing a piece. So we decided to follow him to a hearing that he was supposed to preside over the next day. He didn't show up, after his office telling us he was going to be there. So we couldn't catch him. We do that sometimes, we go with a camera because you can catch them in the hallway and either make them accountable, ask them a few questions, find a way to hold their to the fire. Because so often, I've found, when I worked up on the Hill for a year for CBS it seemed sort of accepted if they won't do an interview or they won't answer a question, a lot of times it just sort of fades away and nobody follows through. And I try to really follow through with these things and give them every opportunity to explain themselves, but also to fulfill their responsibility to answer questions about the money they're spending.
So on this day when he didn't show up at the hearing and I had to go to the office and work on putting the piece together, I said let's keep a camera there all day, let's try to find him. And so I think sometime after noon our camera man called, who had been stationed outside his office, and said he came out and he knew we were - he knew we were kind of following him around. I think he was probably a little bit fed up with it and feeling as though he go and do what he wanted to do that day. So that was the circumstance.
LAMB: So you weren't there?
ATTKISSON: No, I was not there. If I had been there, which sometimes I am if can afford the luxury of waiting on a day and the story's not airing that day, I would have asked him some questions anyway. I would have tossed questions about the specific terms of this FBI investigation.
LAMB: How touchy is all the language you are using and do you have to clear this through an attorney at CBS?
ATTKISSON: The language is very careful. And although I'm not required to clear it through CBS attorneys, I started many years ago clearing all of my stories of a controversial nature through our CBS attorneys.
LAMB: You have in this report a lot - and it's only two and a half minutes - a lot of little ingredients. Former Capitol Hill staffers, who set up lobbying operations, connect the earmarks in all that. Is there anything, on the surface of this, illegal?
ATTKISSON: Well, I think we don't know. I mean, I think that there are - there are potential legal explanations for things that have been done that may - that could be argued is not right even if it is legal. But on an entirely different level, if a quid pro quo were proven, as many have accused Murtha - we have not reported these people on camera saying so - but even other Congressmen on Capitol Hill, it's sort of a well-discussed fact, that some believe and have said there is sort of a quid pro quo going on for earmarks. If that were proven to be the case, that would be illegal, that's against the law.
LAMB: And you picked a Republican by the name of Jeff Flake, from Arizona, to kind of give an accusation and called this thing, "bigger than Abramoff." What's that - how do you decide that you're going to use Jeff Flake? And then how do you - he wasn't challenged on that "bigger than Abramoff?"
ATTKISSON: We mix it up a little bit. I often go to sort of consumer or watchdog groups. I don't like to always go to a politician from the other side of the party, although sometime that's a reasonable thing to do. But we had been talking with Congressman Flake about this issue in particular. We knew that he was up to speed on it and we decided to move on a story that day. We knew he was ready to talk about it. Plus, he was introducing a bill or a notice that day calling for an investigation into these entities surrounding Murtha, the PMA lobby firm. And as such, him introducing it on that particular day gave us a good reason to go to him. It was the third week in a row that he's called for an ethics investigation into the circumstances surrounding some of these earmarks that appear to be given in return by some members of Congress for campaign contributions.
LAMB: How often do you think, if you wanted to, you could do a story just like this about other members of Congress?
ATTKISSON: Do you mean how common is it or how fast could I put a story together?
LAMB: No, how common is it with - among members?
ATTKISSON: The idea that - I will tell you it's fairly common - and I'm not saying laws were broken - it's fairly common that a member who earmarks to an entity or a person or organization has just received or will soon receive contributions from that entity or its interests, I would say that's fairly common. I think I've almost never been disappointed when I followed the trial to see when money goes out the door, has money come back in. That in and of itself of course isn't proof of wrong doing or of anything illegal. But you do start to see a pattern that raises the question of whether something is going on.
LAMB: You did a two-part series on somebody named Catherine Reynolds. And this was from March 2. Here you are.
BEGIN VIDEO: ATTKISSON: For 20 years Catherine Reynolds has guided her non-profit student loan charity, Educap. It's lent billions of dollars to hundreds of thousands of college students.
REYNOLDS: Terrific. Just terrific.
ATTKISSON: And Reynolds has become a leading philanthropist, donating money made from those charity loans to many worthy causes.
REYNOLDS: Well, and we also believe that the people that give the largest donations should sit in the front row.
ATTKISSON: But the IRS and Congressional investigators are probing allegations of a darker side to Reynolds' student loan charity, where family and friends benefit and executives enjoy big salaries and private jet travel to lavish resorts.
When Reynolds donated profits from Educap loans to other charities in 2007, it turns out the biggest grant by far, one for $8 million, went to the Academy of Achievement, which happens to be run by her husband Wayne. He then paid himself in a company he owns $1.5 million, according to tax records. Investigators are trying to unravel the complex ties between the husband and wife charities so intertwined the self-dealing and relationship disclosures span eight pages of tax filings. Mrs. Reynolds has gotten millions for running Educap, 1.2 million in '07 alone. She and the other well-paid Educap executives enjoy fringe benefits such as body guards and meetings at swank resorts.
On one charity trip to Europe, IRS documents allege Reynolds spent $8,000 in Educap charity money on lavish gifts for friends, such as a cashmere cape.
Watchdog Steven Burd says all the money going out Educap's door should be put back into the charity to make student loans more affordable. After all, that's the whole point. Instead he says Educap has some of the toughest loan terms around.
It just seems like most people would think if you're getting student loan from a charity, you're probably getting charitable terms?
STEVEN BURD: Right. And these are absolutely not charitable terms.
ATTKISSON: Burd says Educap charges up to 18 percent interest, triple the government rates, and as much or more than for profit companies. He's heard from dozens of students who complain about costs and aggressive collection tactics. They advise, avoid this company. This is called predatory lending.
Catherine Reynolds wouldn't agree to an interview but has said in the past that any financial benefit to her family was legal and in accordance with normal business procedures, and that Educap loans are comparable to private industry loans.
What else are investigators looking into? Look no further than Educap's $30 million private jet and the well-connected politicians who flew on it. Exclusive details tomorrow.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News.END VIDEO
LAMB: This was in early March. What led to this report?
ATTKISSON: There had been some talk about this charity piping up on Capitol Hill about the time that there were confirmation hearings going on and tax problems amongst certain members that were supposedly going into the Obama administration. There was a report coming out among the Senate - with the Senate finance committee that detailed some politicians who were connected to this charity and some of the problems that they perhaps had in declaring things as gifts on taxes like perks, jet rides from this charity and so on. About the time this report was going to come out, things changed and people withdrawing from consideration for nominations, and the report was never issued by the Senate Finance Committee. But it had already been discussed, it was starting to be reported. And I was able to get a hold of some information from various sources that I had that told me what was inside this report, some of these documents that never came out. And once I got my hands on that material I thought it was significant, especially some of the names that showed up as people who took rides on this charity jet, these politicians or names that we would know. And so we decided to go ahead and do the report.
LAMB: When you watch something like this, it flies by very quickly and there's all this language and everything, the charity foundations and all that. Is there public information available? I mean, in other words, if just a citizen wanted to find something about Catherine Reynolds and her foundation, is it easy to find the information?
ATTKISSON: Absolutely. And yet I think a lot of even reporters don't go that far. There's something very simple you can do, is look up their form 990s, which is what non-profit charitable organizations must file. And although there's not a lot of detail in these forms required, you can still get a hint as to what's going on at a charity. So you could go to a web site called guidestar.org - one word, guidestar.org - and I think you can join for a nominal fee and access the tax filings of these organizations. They're not always current, up to the current year, but you can look back and get the last few years. And you can start seeing patterns. You can see who sits on their board, how much they're paid. It doesn't mean you can take every bit of information at face value, but you can start to get a hint of how money is spent. The information I got on this report, in part two of it which shows who was taking rides on the charity jets and so on, that is not in the public documentation. But the public documents help paint a picture of the type of organization you're looking at.
LAMB: We're going to see in your next report that you actually name people and the number of trips that they took. Where does that information come from?
ATTKISSON: That came from very good sources that I have on the story.
LAMB: So it's a source thing?
ATTKISSON: It's a source thing, right.
LAMB: And form time to time do you have people inside these organizations who get ticked off by watching them live the high life and they slip this kind of stuff to you?
ATTKISSON: Absolutely. Some of the best information comes from what I like to call disgruntled employees. You know I think we are overly cautioned as journalists don't listen to disgruntled employees. Well, a happy employee is not going to tell you anything. The only person who is going to give you information is a credible, reliable disgruntled employee who has tried to raise objections from inside the organization sometimes and not been listened to and will eventually come to somebody who will hear them out.
LAMB: Now, in the next report you show some - and I wanted to ask you the - what we call B roll, the shots of Catherine Reynolds, did they come from the 60 Minutes special?
ATTKISSON: Yes, they did.
LAMB: When did the 60 Minutes special interview with her occur?
ATTKISSON: 60 Minutes did a piece a number of years ago, not recently, I think maybe around 2003. They had done - they did a profile about some of her major charitable contributions.
LAMB: And that was fairly positive?
ATTKISSON: And that was a positive profile piece.
LAMB: And she wouldn't talk to you though when it was - what you were reporting this time.
ATTKISSON: That's right.
LAMB: Now, is there any wrongdoing in this, legal wrongdoing, that's been charged for - about Catherine Reynolds?
ATTKISSON: Well, again, it could lead to something if there was certain misuse of funds. But the primary problem with what she may have done, according to those who have investigated this, is if she is getting non-profit benefits, non-profit status, tax exempt status, and yet not providing charitable function or being extremely lavish and wasteful with money, therefore you know not serving a charitable mission, then the group should not be entitled to tax exempt status, which all of us in our own way support through our tax dollars.
LAMB: We're going to watch this second report, but before we do, when you see the names pop up, famous names that have ridden on this jet, were they doing anything wrong?
ATTKISSON: I would say that's up to each one to be decided. For example, in Chicago, if the mayor was not supposed to be in one place and was on this charitable flight, you know, if he was some place he was not supposed to be, if he was - had said he was not going to use private flights and was doing so, that's more of local issue for them to decide. No, there's no law against riding on a charity jet on their part, there's no law against taking a ride on a jet that was meant to support a charity.
LAMB: Let's watch your report that came the second night, which was March 3 this year.
BEGIN VIDEO:
ATTKISSON: Educap is multi-billion dollar student loan charity run by CEO Catherine Reynolds.
REYNOLDS: It should be really a beautiful event.
ATTKISSON: As we reported last night, it's under investigation by the IRS and Congress for alleged abuse of its tax-exempt status. It charges high interest on charitable student loans and provides lavish perks with millions in compensation for Reynolds and her husband.
CBS News has obtained exclusive details of what may have been the biggest charity perk, use of Educap's $31 million private jet, like this one, which cost thousands of dollars an hour to operate.
Investigators say for five years Reynolds jetted family, friends and luminaries to exotic and far away destinations that sometimes had little to do with the charity's mission.
CBS News has learned that high profile names on the Educap flight list include CIA Director Leon Panetta, ex-Senators Tom Daschle and Ted Stevens, former FBI Director William Sessions, and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley. According to flight records, Panetta and Daschle, while they were out of public office, accompanied Educap's Catherine Reynolds on flights to private business meetings not related to the charity. Reynolds also took Daschle and his wife on a tour with seven stops in Europe and the Middle East. Ted Stevens, his wife and daughter, were along on dozens on flights, hitting destinations like Vale and Aspen before the Senator was convicted on corruption charges last fall. And records show Reynolds took Chicago mayor Richard Daley and his wife on 58 flights, including Turkey, Asia and Sweden.
Watchdog Steven Burd says money spent on the jet comes off the backs of students with Educap loans costing up to three times more than government loans.
Do you think they're acting like a for-profit company only operating as a charity?
BURD: Exactly. Educap is the worst case that I've seen, a charity - so-called charity abusing its tax-exempt status.
ATTKISSON: Reynolds wouldn't talk with us. Educap has said it's loans are competitive with private companies. As for the jet, Educap has said its use was appropriate. None of the passengers would talk with us, but there's no against flying on charity jets. Panetta has told congress he acted in full compliance with tax laws.
Educap sold its pricey jet after the IRS began looking into it. But that hasn't ended the controversy or the investigations.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News.END VIDEO
LAMB: The charitable student loans you refer to, what are they?
ATTKISSON: It appears as though Mrs. Reynolds runs a - basically a private loan business, under the auspices of a charity, giving loans to students who maybe are not poor enough to qualify for certain federal loans but not wealthy enough to pay for college on their own. So it would seem to serve perhaps a charitable purpose. The problem is, according to investigators who have looked at this, too often high interest charged, onerous terms are put upon the kids who, through aggressive marketing tactics, have been convinced to get these loans when they might be able to get better terms through other courses. Aggressive collection tactics are used, according to some of the students, if they miss a single payment. I mean, they operate like, by all accounts, a private loan business and yet are given this tax-exempt status. And then the profits, there's extraordinary profit in this business, according to the charitable folks that we spoke to, they say that should be rolled back into subsidizing the cost of the student loans for the kids. Instead, those profits are taken and given - spent on things like the jet or spent with Catherine Reynolds donating in her name, although it's the student loan charity's money, to charities of her choice, maybe her child's private school, and also some other good legitimate charities. But that's not how, according to though who are charity watchdogs, say that it's supposed to work.
LAMB: Now, if you live in Washington, the name Catherine Reynolds and Wayne Reynolds, her husband, well-known, have given a lot of money to Washington type charities?
ATTKISSON: They've given a ton of money. And her husband seems to be her biggest charity, in a sense, because the money that she makes from the Educap charity, a large grant, the biggest grant of the year that we looked at off those Form 990s for 2006, went to her husband's charity. It's called the Academy of Achievement, from which he draws a large salary/contract, you know, from his own charity. And the primary purpose of his charity is putting on an annual sort of party get together between some students and luminaries that they pay to attend, such as Desmond Tutu, politicians that you know, high ranking government officials. And it's almost this air of legitimacy is lent by all the people coming there and seeing each other when the whole purpose of the charity is to put on the party. There seems to be little else done. They do not grant to anybody, they don't do other charitable functions.
LAMB: And do people like Desmond Tutu get paid to come to these charities?
ATTKISSON: I haven't been able to confirm that first hand, but I've been told that, yes, these people - they're paid appearances, they're hired through speakers bureaus and so on to attend.
LAMB: Did you try to do the same thing with her that you did with John Murtha, try to find her outside of her office and talk to her?
ATTKISSON: I did. And we did go to her offices. We went to both of their offices that - for which we had addresses, which were sort of quiet and empty and took pictures, but, no, we didn't follow her around.
LAMB: Why did you give Steven Burd, who is from a dot-org or a not - is it a non-profit operation? What is Higher Ed Watch?
ATTKISSON: I can't remember the name of his umbrella group, but it's a group that watches - that analyzes and studies the student loan industry. And he had done an investigation of Educap a couple years ago. It was the only one that I have seen that parsed the numbers and found that the terms of the loans that they put out are onerous and much like a private group, if not worse.
LAMB: So why did you give him such prominence in these pieces?
ATTKISSON: Well, he was a voice for what a lot of sources had told me but could not go on camera. And Burd had said some of the same things. For example, that this was the worst abuse of a tax-exempt charity that he's ever seen. I've been told that by numerous sources before he said so on Capitol Hill. So he fit very well as someone who I could actually use on camera to say the things that I had heard from also other legitimate sources.
LAMB: Are we to understand that Tom Daschle and Leon Panetta were not in government when they made these rides?
ATTKISSON: They were not in government when they made the rides. Now, Mr. Daschle, the day - we had been a report was going to come out from Senate Finance Committee on this topic - we were waiting all day for that to come out - was the day he withdrew his nomination. And I'm not saying it was because of that, but that may have also played a factor in his decision to withdraw.
LAMB: What was the mayor Chicago taking all those rides for?
ATTKISSON: I don't know, you have to wonder. I mean, I don't think we have all the answers, but you do - it raises questions as to why this particular mix of people was on this jet sometimes - you know there's so much you can't fit into a story. But this jet was being used almost like a personal shuttle service, if the records are accurate that have been turned over by Educap to investigators. It would make more than one trip to the Bahamas in a single day, sometimes empty, going back and forth to the same place to pick up one more person, and go back, sometimes one, two, three, four, five people on this jet at a time, which is a large jet that costs many thousands of dollars an hour to operate.
I believe Mr. Panetta and Mrs. Reynolds and some of the others who flew on this jet are all - were all members of a board of a insurance company called Zenith and they were going to private board meetings for Zenith Insurance on this charity jet.
LAMB: Any feedback to you on these two reports?
ATTKISSON: By?
LAMB: Catherine Reynolds, any of the people that you named in the report?
ATTKISSON: No. There was fallout initially from the mayor of Chicago. His office told our affiliate after our report aired that none of it was true, he had never ridden on this jet, had never heard of Educap, and doesn't like small planes. And then over the course of the next week or two - they never raised that compliant with me and we had offered them a chance for an interview and information, which they had declined. Over the course of the next couple weeks he had acknowledged that he had taken many flights on that jet.
LAMB: Why did that initially tell you they hadn't?
ATTKISSON: He was out of town and I think - you know my gut sense of that is that his office just reacted, and the best reaction at the moment seemed to be to say that he didn't do it.
LAMB: One technical question about your reporting. When we see you on camera, is that memorized or do you have a teleprompter?
ATTKISSON: It's memorized.
LAMB: Is that hard to do?
ATTKISSON: No, not any more. It probably used to be 100 years ago.
LAMB: And how long are you on camera at any given time during these reports like that?
ATTKISSON: Maybe anywhere between 15 and 30 seconds.
LAMB: Next report comes from 2007. It comes from February 7, 2007. And it involves another airplane and Nancy Pelosi. Let's watch.
BEGIN VIDEO:
ATTKISSON: Ever since 9/11 a small military jet like this has been made available to transport the Speaker of the House for security reasons. The speaker is second in the line of succession to the presidency. Back then it was Republican Dennis Hastert. Now it's Democrat Nancy Pelosi. But she may getting a little more leg room. Speaker Pelosi is reportedly asking for a much bigger jet, a government version of the Boeing 757 that can make the trip between Washington and her San Francisco home without stopping to refuel. The speaker's critics have dubbed it "Pelosi One." Military officials are said to be grumbling about it and the speaker finds herself on the defensive. Today she insisted size doesn't really matter.
NANCY PELOSI: It's not a question of size, it's a question of distance. We wanted aircraft that can reach California.
ATTKISSON: But an aircraft like that can comfortably seat 50. And Republican leader Roy Blunt is among those questioning how all those extra seats might get filled.
ROY BLUNT: And you know if you can say to your supporters, "Do you want to fly with me from San Francisco this week, spend the week in New York, and then fly with me back?" That's incredible perk, it's an incredible fund raising tool.
ATTKISSON: Pelosi's office told us she'll follow all the appropriate guidelines. The problem is there aren't any yet. Because of the flack, the Defense Department is now said to be quickly writing rules for The Speaker's plane, everything from size to who can go along for the ride.END VIDEO
LAMB: Well, the first thing I want to ask you about is Roy Blunt, because back in the days when members of Congress could commandeer - I don't know if that's the word - a corporate jet for the price of a first class ticket he was a user, often. You would see his name a lot in that - and I assume that - you can tell us whether they can do that anymore. But you didn't get that I don't from your report that he was a user …
ATTKISSON: No, I didn't know that, didn't go into it that far. I do - I don't know what the rules are now, but when I was working up on the Hill, I believe they were still allowed to take corporate trips as long as they reimbursed. And a lot of times the reimbursement level doesn't really begin to pay back for the perk that they get by using the jet for whatever corporation is offered.
LAMB: Yes, it was a first class ticket.
ATTKISSON: Yes.
LAMB: It might have cost $30,000 for the jet to move around. Why this report on Nancy Pelosi? And do you know anything about what she is doing today and what kind of a jet the military is providing her?
ATTKISSON: At the time I did that story I was reporting up on Capitol Hill. That's Nancy Cordes' job now for CBS. So I have not followed the latest controversies you know only - I've only heard about that tangentially. The reason I did the story on that day, it was really brewing on Capitol Hill and I - if I remember correctly, I'd been assigned a different story for that day. And we changed courses midstream because there was really a lot of talk about it that day.
LAMB: How tough are these to do?
ATTKISSON: In terms of putting them together quickly? …
LAMB: No, no. How - I mean, clearly you are - I probably shouldn't use this language - you're stepping on the toes of powerful people.
ATTKISSON: It's a huge responsibility and I don't do it lightly. But I think it's important and I - and I believe in what I do. So it's not hard for me to want to do the stories and I feel that they're, you know, great resource to the public. And also that I don't think a lot of it's being done. I think we're doing more of it in different ways than you'd see elsewhere. So I think it's a huge value to our - to our newscast. And it's heavily supported by our current management. So all of that makes it pretty easy.
LAMB: Would you assign the word tough to yourself?
ATTKISSON: Yes.
LAMB: Where does that come from?
ATTKISSON: I think doing these stories, because I don't - I don't think I ever thought of myself as tough maybe 20-30 years ago. But I see now that what happens before and after you run stories like these, it requires you to be tough. Because of the criticism, I've been grabbed by a member of Congress, I've had veiled threats and not so veiled threats made toward me, I've had a lot of uncomfortable things happen. And after that happens long enough, you do get tough.
LAMB: Which member of Congress grabbed you and why?
ATTKISSON: Stephanie Tubbs Jones.
LAMB: Deceased.
ATTKISSON: Yes. And I was waiting for her. She had made an earmark. There was nothing illegal about it. This was simply a question of potentially waste or has this earmark have been - was this a proper use of federal dollars. And it was a million dollars to Sherwin Williams in her home district. And we had given her a chance to do an interview and she had declined. And we really needed an answer from her. It was hard to - we were determined to do the story, because obviously if they let you - if they kill a story by not doing an interview, no one would ever do an interview. So we were determined to do it. And we decided to try to find her in a hallway. And I did it very politely and I was able to stake her out and stay there all day because the story was not due that day.
So we were there with a camera at a distance. And when she saw us you know it took a lot of time to figure out where she'd be, we were outside of her office. I approached her very - in a very friendly, non-threatening manner, extended my hand and identified myself with the camera off behind me. And she smiled and shook my hand. And when I explained what I was there to do and that I wanted to ask her some questions about Sherwin Williams, she got very upset and grabbed my wrist. And I could have sort of escaped and counter-attacked, but I didn't think that would be the right thing to do. And I asked her to take her hands off me and she did.
LAMB: What happened after that?
ATTKISSON: She did an interview with me. I think she was embarrassed that she had grabbed me. And she knows, having been as judge, that technically that's a violation of law, you're not allowed to grab people. And she apologized and then she invited me in to do a brief interview on the topic that I had asked to be interviewed about.
LAMB: How hard did they make it on Capitol Hill for you to move around and interview people up there with your cameras?
ATTKISSON: It's pretty hard, it's pretty regulated. And I relied - the year that I worked up there full time a couple years ago I really relied on our producers and camera people who work up - who have worked up there for years to understand the rules, where we can and can't be. And if they get wind of - if you're trying to stake them out of find a member of Congress who doesn't want to be found, they can ultimately just call the Capitol police, if they wish, and try to get you moved. And you have to know the rules and what you can challenge and how to stay. So it's sort of an art form if you're trying to rub against the grain of being somewhere where you need to be to get answers.
LAMB: I want to show you some video. We don't know this person in the video. We got this on YouTube. You'll see why we're going to run this. And I want to ask you, what relationship this has to you?
ATTKISSON: OK.
LAMB: It's - we got this under the heading second degree Tae Kwon Do - I think it's a test that this woman is taking. Can you do this?
ATTKISSON: I can do that. Well - that's pretty good. I am a second degree black belt and that's - yes, this is the types of things that we do in our testing, in our competitions and demonstrations.
LAMB: Why do you do this?
ATTKISSON: And - I did it because I started - because my started first and it looked like a lot of fun and I realized I could get exercise as well if I were to join.
LAMB: How old is your daughter?
ATTKISSON: She's 13. So she started when she was six and I started right after she did.
LAMB: So what would you use it for?
ATTKISSON: Primarily for exercise. But it has been as great confidence builder and also I haven't been attacked in a way I've needed to use it. But I - I feel confident that I could at least do some damage if somebody physically attacked me. Whereas maybe before I started taking Tae Kwon Do, I'd probably just try to wiggle out of somebody's grip and not be very successful at it. I could probably get away.
LAMB: When will you become a third degree?
ATTKISSON: I think by the end of this year if I keep progressing I'll test for my third degree black belt.
LAMB: And what's your husband do?
ATTKISSON: He's a retired lawyer. Before that he was in law enforcement. He was head of his SWAT team in the local market where I worked in Florida. And he was in the Vietnam War before that.
LAMB: And where'd you meet him?
ATTKISSON: I met him while he was working with the sheriff's office in Indian River County, Florida. And I was a local news reporter in Vero Beach, Florida.
LAMB: Do you ever take him along just to help you out in case your second degree Tae Kwon Do isn't working …
ATTKISSON: No, I think he relies on me to protect him now.
LAMB: Let's go back to, again, another politician. This is from 2007. And this is a man named Charlie Rangel who's the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee on Capitol Hill. Lots of other stories have come out since this one. Can you set this up? It's about two and a half minutes. What's the - what's the point here?
ATTKISSON: You're going to have to remind me, because it's been a whole.
LAMB: This is the naming of the - well, let's show the report and it'll refresh your memory and you can tell us how you got to this one.
ATTKISSON: OK.
BEGIN VIDEO:
ATTKISSON: Millions of your tax dollars are going for a new program here at City College of New York in the heart of Harlem. The mission is to get more minority and poor students into politics.
EDMONDSON (CITY COLLEGE): EDMONDSON (CITY COLLEGE): This is an effort to make sure that America's government looks like America.
Nobody's taking issue with that. What they are griping about is this. One member of Congress funneled two million tax dollars into the project through a special earmark and the whole thing is named after him.
CHARLIE RANGEL: I cannot think of anything that I am more proud of.
ATTKISSON: That member of Congress is Charles Rangel, one of the most powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill. According to a promotional brochure, this soon to be refurbished building will house the new Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, the Rangel Conference Center, a well-furnished office for Charles Rangel and the Charles Rangel Library for his papers and memorabilia, kind of like a presidential library but without a president. In fact, the brochure says Rangel's library will be as important as the Clinton and Carter libraries. Republican Congressman John Campbell says it's downright unseemly.
You've got a nickname for this project.
JOHN CAMPBELL: Yes, we call it "the monument to me", because you're creating or the person, in this case, Congressman Rangel, is creating a monument to himself.
ATTKISSON: Campbell, who's only in his second year in Congress, challenged Rangel, who's been here 36 years, in a debate on the House floor.
CAMPBELL: You don't agree with me or see any problem with us as members sending tax payer funds in the creation of things named after ourselves while we are still here?
RANGEL: I would have a problem if you did it, because I don't think that you've been around long enough that having your name on something to inspire a building like this in a school …
ATTKISSON: But the inspiration for Rangel's library and the idea to get it federal funding came from Rangel, not the college, according to City College spokeswoman Mary Lou Edmonson.
Was it his or requirement that his name be on a center?
MARY LOU EDMONDSON: I don't think we would ever think of not having his name on a center if we have his papers.
ATTKISSON: So he wanted his name on the center.
EDMONSON: (INAUDIBLE)
ATTKISSON: Rangel wouldn't agree to an interview but told me on the phone he's proud of the idea and has always tried to put as much money into schools as possible. And he says education is what the Rangel library is all about, brought to you by Charles Rangel and your tax dollars.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, New York.END VIDEO
LAMB: Here's another case where he wouldn't give you an interview, but you did interview the Republican who was charging him with you know the structure to himself.
ATTKISSON: Well, and just for the record, because you selected some good stories, but we have done as many about Republicans as well. We've done, coming to mind, several stories on Ted Stevens, Rick Renzie, Don Young, the famous earmark that he did down in Florida. So it is balanced even though we're - and those are done in the same way and spirit as these are done.
LAMB: I should say, just for the record, we just finished two one-hour programs on Ted Stevens. So this is all part of our part of our balance also to show the kind of reports that you've done on this. But go back to this. I mean, there's a Bob Byrd Center up at Shepherd University, in West Virginia. There are other Senator - centers already named for people in this country.
ATTKISSON: We did a whole - a whole story, actually two minutes on Byrd's - the things named after him. Because we did - there are a lot of those - you know some are more prolific than others. But it is considered, as said in a report, I'm told by members of Congress and those who work up there unseemly to name something after yourself or to agree to fund something that's named after yourself while you're still in office. And, yes, it's done. During the time this report aired we were tasked with finding specific earmarks that were examples of things that the public might see as waste or abuse or something that was frivolous. And this was a good - now I remember it, I had seen that debate on the floor between Representative Campbell and the Congressman Rangel about this. And it just struck me as something that people would find kind of interesting and remarkable, and typical of the type of attitude that you see, where some members think they're good enough or more important enough and that things should be named after them and that there is nothing wrong with funding something like that.
LAMB: As we talked earlier, born in Sarasota, went to the University of Florida, started out in Florida television, ended up with CNN and then here in Washington after a stint for a year in New York on CBS. Currently CBS doing Follow The Money. But what has happened to your attitude about Washington and what goes on in Capitol Hill and in the town since you've come here and since you've started reporting this?
ATTKISSON: I feel like - and I know that I've in a specific area of coverage that to some degree exposes me to some of the worst. But I do feel like our money is wasted in ways - more ways than the average person ever understands. And I really get a sense of that having worked up here and followed the money and seen what happens with it first hand and really been able to - you know honing down and following the trail of where the money goes. I feel like it's really - I'd be surprised if a good deal of every dollar that is taken in, if a good deal really goes to the cause that is intended. I think a lot comes off the top for bureaucracy administration, waste, fraud and abuse.
LAMB: One of the things - in reading a lot of your transcripts from reports earlier, I started writing the kind of people you would talk to in their reports to counter whatever the story was or to enhance it. And most of these are Washington-based. One is the Citizens Against Government Waste, which had - started by Jack Anderson, among all people, the former - he's a deceased journalist for years. The Center For Responsive Politics, that was Allen Miller who started that and is on their board and has Opensecrets.org. Another spokesman from the Government Accountability Project. The Center For Defense Information, which, among other things, one of their board members is Ben Cohen, of Ben and Jerry's. Citizens For Responsibility And Ethics In Washington, CREW, which is Melanie Sloan's outfit. She came - she used to work for John Conyers and Chuck Schumer on the Hill in their committees. And I noticed on the Web site that a lot of who they've been going after are Democrats now.
How does the citizen who gets on - and I go on these things all the time to see - how do you know where they're coming from? And they are all non-profits, 501C3s, tax-exempt?
ATTKISSON: Well, I think it's almost less important where they're coming from if they're giving a view that is a legitimate, balanced view of something that you're looking at that represents a certain side. We do look at all the groups that we have used. We look at their backgrounds and we try to see - I noticed like you did some groups that you think or assume have gone only conservatives you see has really gone after liberals, too. You know you like to interview a group where you see that, that they're just sort of looking for where the problem is and they're willing to go in either direction. But it doesn't mean we would never use a group that leans one way or the other. We would simply try to fairly use groups that - from both sides of that as long as they're representing a view that seems - one legitimately represented by the public. We often go to the group, too, that has raised a criticism. If we're doing a story on a particular topic and we research to see who has raised this if anybody else in the last you know few weeks or few months, who knows about it, who has done investigation. Sometimes we'll go to that group.
LAMB: Some people will remember this report from you in March 25 of 1996. And we go back to Bosnia. Let's watch.
BEGIN VIDEO:
UNIDENTIFIED PARTICIPANT: First Lady Hillary Clinton is in Bosnia this morning touring U.S. bases and visiting American troops on the front lines of the peace keeping mission. Mrs. Clinton's first stop is Tuzla, headquarters for the U.S. operation. Sharyl Attkisson is traveling with Mrs. Clinton.
ATTKISSON: Bosnia's acting president greeted Hillary Clinton and her daughter Chelsea in Tuzla this morning. So did an eight-year-old Bosnian girl who was four when the civil war broke out in her country and says she can't remember a time before it.
Mrs. Clinton met with community leaders who told the first lady stories of a nation largely in ruins but trying to rebuild. Twenty thousand American troops are in Bosnia helping to keep the peace. In December, Mrs. Clinton promised she would visit them here in a show of support for the mission and to thank them for their personal sacrifices.
Mission Clinton is the first wife of a president in recent history to visit troops in a hostile zone, and she'll continue breaking new ground today doing something that even her husband, the president, has never done. She'll fly to outpost camps in Bosnia to visit the troops.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Tuzla, Bosnia.
END VIDEO LAMB: What do you remember from that?
ATTKISSON: It was a fun trip, it was an exciting trip. We got to go to Bosnia, Greece, Turkey, Italy. And there wasn't a lot of news made, but it was a good opportunity for me to get out and sort of work in that political climate and was assigned to follow the first lady and Chelsea around on the trip.
LAMB: How well did you get to know Mrs. Clinton? She was first lady then.
ATTKISSON: Not well. I mean, we're shoulder to shoulder with her. She would have pictures taken with us, would chat with us informally. We would have - a dinner was arranged with all of us together. So we were in the same room together, but I wouldn't say that I ever really got to know her well.
LAMB: Well, let's move - let's see if I can calculate right - 12 years later. Twelve years later. March 24, 2008. Watch this.BEGIN VIDEO
ATTKISSON: It was supposed to be an example of Hillary Clinton's battle tested experience.
HILLARY CLINTON: I remember landing under sniper fire.
ATTKISSON: In the speech last week, Senator Clinton was referring to her visit to Tuzla, Bosnia, in 1996 as first lady. The brutal war was over, but hostilities continued, and though the trip was exactly 12 years ago tomorrow, the memory seemed etched in Clinton's mind.
CLINTON: There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.
ATTKISSON: Problem is, that's not what happened. And we should know. CBS News accompanied the first lady and daughter Chelsea on that Bosnia trip. That's Senator Clinton talking to me on the military flight into Tuzla, and these are the pictures we recorded of the greeting ceremony when the plan landed. Compare that so Senator Clinton's account.
CLINTON: I remember landing under sniper fire. There was no greeting ceremony. And we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, what is what happened.
ATTKISSON: There was no sniper fire either when Senator Clinton two army outposts where she posed for photos, and no sniper fire back at the base where she sang at a U.S.O show starring Sinbad and Cheryl Crow. Referring to the CBS News video, Clinton aids today acknowledged her arrival in Bosnia was not quite as dramatic as Clinton put it.
LISSA MUSCATINE(CLINTON CAMPAIGN AID): LISSA MUSCATINE(CLINTON CAMPAIGN AID): She meant that there was fire in the hillside around the area when we landed, which was the case.
MIKE ALLEN (POLITICO.COM): MIKE ALLEN (POLITICO.COM): Who knows if she mis-remembered, misspoke, exaggerated. Whatever, it makes the case for Senator Obama, that all this experience that she's been talking about is, at least partly, her imagination.
ATTKISSON: Hundreds of thousands have viewed the video online in just the past few days, a reminder that in politics memory should always match the videotape.
Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington.END VIDEO
LAMB: So what led you to do that? And what was the fallout from this?
ATTKISSON: I had been out of the country I think just on personal trip, and when I came back I had a couple of e-mails, maybe it was on a Sunday evening, saying you know, "ha ha, people are watching your old Bosnia story from 12 years ago on YouTube, it's a big hit because of what of Hillary's saying." And I didn't know what they were talking about. So I tried to get up to speed and I asked a few people questions and they said, well, she has been on the campaign trial in the last couple of months saying that she ducked sniper fire on that trip. And I said, well, she must be talking about a different trip. I mean, my first instinct was that there had been some confusion and she wasn't referring to the trip we had been on. There was no sniper fire on our trip.
So I looked at - got to work early on Monday and looked at quotes from her and the transcripts of places where she had said this. And I said, no, she's talking about that trip I was on. And my bosses had - by then also were somehow alerted to it and it was going on and said take a look at this. If this is the same trip she's speaking of, do you have the tape, do you remember. And I said, yes, and I just - I don't save a lot of things for sentimental reasons, but it was a fun trip and I still had videotape and notes from it. And pulled all of it up and there it was. I mean, clearly it had not happened the way she had described. And I must mention here, I have terrific bosses. I mean, from Sean McManus, who's our news division president, to Paul Friedman, to Rick Kaplan, our executive producer, to Katie Couric, they all want hard-hitting stories no matter where they go and they support them and they appreciate them. They want this type of reporting done. If somebody - if that important politician is making statements that are - appear to be incorrect or proven false, it's up to us, they believe, to hold their feet to the fire. And that's what they wanted me to do.
LAMB: Isn't Sean McManus Jim McKay's son?
ATTKISSON: Yes, yes.
LAMB: And he's the head of your news division?
ATTKISSON: Yes, he is.
LAMB: Just a quick detour before we get back to this. But one of the things I've noticed when I was growing up, almost only men reported on CBS Evening News, and now it's almost the other way.
ATTKISSON: You know, when I first came to CBS it was still on evening news on a regular basis almost all men, if not all men night after night. And I think it goes in waves. Obviously it's not that way anymore, which is nice. But everybody has an opportunity now, and that's been a huge change since I've gotten there.
LAMB: What was the - I mean, this was in the middle of the primary for Mrs. Clinton. And I want to ask you what the result - what the fallout was at that time, but also - this kind of thing was never brought up when she was being considered for secretary of state.
ATTKISSON: Well, that surprised me and that was really not my area of coverage. But I do remember thinking - this had been blamed or credited in part with sort of knocking her out of the race. You know there had been a number of things, but a lot of people thought this was really a big deal, that this was one reason she couldn't sustain her fight against you know President Obama. So then when it came up for secretary for state, I kind of wondered, would it come up. If it was something that people found objectionable for her as a condition for president, why would it not also be objectionable for someone who is going to represent as the secretary of state. It didn't come up. And it's not like I was seeking - I probably can or could propose to do a story on that, but it seemed at the time I was busy with other things and it just didn't make sense to rehash it. But I was a little surprised that it didn't seem to matter.
LAMB: In the remaining minutes, give us some background on your family.
ATTKISSON: My family. I come from seven kids and step-kids, all of us about the same age.
LAMB: Seven - total of seven?
ATTKISSON: Total of seven, including the step-kids. And we all are in a little tight group age-wise, so we've all moved up and grown - in our 40s and now 50s together.
LAMB: We have a photograph of you and three of your siblings.
ATTKISSON: Yes, those are …
LAMB: Are they all - any of those step-kids in that?
ATTKISSON: Nope, that's my brother and my two sisters. My brother's a physician. He's an emergency room doctor in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And my older sister's a realtor in Jacksonville, Florida, area. And my little sister's a lawyer there.
LAMB: And you're the person in the picture between the two women.
ATTKISSON: Yes.
LAMB: The two young girls.
ATTKISSON: I've got the ponytails. And I - yes, exactly.
LAMB: What about your parents, are they alive?
ATTKISSON: My parents are alive. My father is a retired lawyer. My stepfather, who was the one that I grew up with more years, is an orthopedic surgeon, retired. My mother's a housewife, retired housewife. And I guess that's everybody.
LAMB: On the scale you know of jobs and all, rate this job you have. I mean, is this it? I mean, is this the best ?
ATTKISSON: This is it. This is the best. Especially - you know you have your ups and downs and everybody - the joke is you're only as good as your last story. And some days are more difficult than others. But overall this is the exactly where I want to be and what I want to do. And with Katie anchoring and with the bosses that I named that heavily support this type of reporting, which is a dream come true for someone who loves to dig and satisfy their curiosity, this is - this is it.
LAMB: What would you say is more than not the number one source for any of your stories? I don't mean a person, I mean …
ATTKISSON: Yes.
LAMB: … where do they come from?
ATTKISSON: I'd say primarily two sources, if I can. One of them would be well connected people on Capitol Hill that maybe can't go on camera but feed me information, and the people you ultimately see on camera kind of represent the viewpoint but may not be the person where I got the information from. And, number two, inside source at federal agencies and corporations and charities who - or FDA, places like that - who have tried to raise questions about operations from within in almost every case, if not every case, and for years have been rebuffed and really feel like something wrong is happening inside the agency or organization. And ultimately will come to me either because of the type of reporting I do or maybe put to me through a third person intermediary with an important story to tell and good information.
LAMB: What kind of a backup do you have when you do a story, meaning producers and researchers and people like that, before the story ends up getting on the air. How many people touch it?
ATTKISSON: I have producer, Chris Scholl, who's excellent. He thinks with an investigative intellect and we work very well together. So he and I - after I write a story, he looks it over and makes any ideas or critiques. And he's going to be the one in the edit room putting the video together. It goes to Bill Pearsall, a senior producer up in New York, who will look at the script and give ideas. Simultaneously I've sent it to our CBS lawyers who will look at it and also just make sure we're on solid ground on everything or give ideas if they have any. And then ultimately Rick Kaplan will look at it, our executive producer, and if he has ideas we obviously take his ideas as well.
LAMB: How often have you had something kicked back to you?
ATTKISSON: Completely kicked back, I don't think ever.
LAMB: And when they object to something along the way, what is it?
ATTKISSON: Some - it's usually fairly simple. You know this phrase doesn't make sense, this should be clearer, why don't you move this sentence down, cut this out, you don't need it. That type of thing. It's fairly simple.
LAMB: We often see on the evening news shows stories that we might have read in a newspaper in the morning or two or three days before. How important is that to you?
ATTKISSON: I hate that. I try not to do those. I don't …
LAMB: Why do you hate it?
ATTKISSON: I think our job - if it's been in the paper, why do we want to give it to you again that night? And when I - the journalism school that I went to at University of Florida, you got an F if you copied out of the paper. That's just the mentality that I'm from. So our idea is to try to do something completely different and to bring the audience something they don't know about. So that's what Katie Couric wants to do, that's what our bosses want to do. They want to have value added to the evening newscast so that there's something there that you didn't get from the morning paper.
LAMB: So how honest is our government? I know that's a broad question.
ATTKISSON: Yes. It's a mixed bag. I would say I have met a few - I'm not fond of politicians in general, not to be mean. I have met a few who I think are fairly honest and good hearted and trying to do the right thing. But I have seen so much up here that smacks of things that people would find objectionable if they knew. I mean, we can't even tell them a fraction of the things that we know about having worked here and lived here. I'm sure you feel the same way. And I feel like there is a lot of deception or at least obfuscation going on with how our money is spent and how our laws are handled.
Almost every good issue that's brought up in Congress, I've come to think very little of it, is because of the grassroots concerns, because some lobbyist has gotten a member of Congress to call a hearing. It's very - the influences that happen upon our Capitol by outside forces are very stunning, and it's not really the grassroots voter people interests, by in large, in my opinion, that is dictating the agenda on Capitol Hill.
LAMB: CBS investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, we are finished, we have no more time. And I thank you very much.
ATTKISSON: Thank you.END