60 Minutes (1968) s46e04 Episode Script
Season 46, Episode 4
The government shutdown that finally ended on Wednesday night furloughed 800,000 government workers for the better part of two weeks, but there was one group of federal employees that was able to maintain the lifestyle that many of them have grown accustomed to: members of Congress.
With all the talk about their irreconcilable political differences, we wanted to see if they shared any common ground.
And we found some.
For example, there seems to be a permanent majority in Congress that's completely satisfied with the current state of campaign financing and congressional ethics and members of both parties have institutionalized ways to skirt the rules.
Most Americans believe it's against the law for congressmen and senators to profit personally from their political office but it's an open secret in Washington that that's not the case.
As the saying goes the real scandal in Washington isn't what's illegal, it's what is legal.
Georgia Sen.
Saxby Chambliss likes golf, so much so that he spent more than $100,000 the past two years entertaining at some of the finest courses in the world.
New York congressman Gregory Meeks prefers football.
He spent $35,000 on NFL games.
All of this was paid for with political contributions -- all in the name of democracy Peter Schweizer: I think campaign fundraising is increasingly not just about winning elections.
It's a lifestyle subsidy.
Peter Schweizer, is an author and fellow at the Hoover Institution.
For the past few years, he and a team of researchers have been investigating the way congressmen and senators have personally benefited from the hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions that have poured into the system.
Steve Kroft: I think most people have the impression that campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses.
Is that true? Peter Schwiezer: Yes.
Regular campaign funds cannot, that's correct.
But there are ways around it.
Like all things in Washington, the devil is in the details, and loopholes are usually put in place for a reason.
For example, when Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it plainly stated "a member shall convert no campaign funds to personal use.
" But soon afterwards congressional leaders quietly invented something called leadership PACs, political action committees that were not technically campaign funds and thus exempt from the personal use prohibition.
Steve Kroft: This is a loophole? Trevor Potter: Right.
That's correct.
Trevor Potter is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
He says it didn't take long for congressmen and senators to figure out the distinct advantages of having a Leadership PAC, with no restrictions.
Trevor Potter: Since they weren't around when the ban on personal use was put into place, they're not covered by it.
And they can be used for literally anything.
Over time the leadership PACs that were created as a way for congressional leaders of both parties, to raise money and distribute it to their members, have evolved into something different.
Today, nearly every congressman and senator has a leadership PAC, not just the leaders.
And they are used to solicit contributions from friends and supporters in order to advance their political agendas, their careers and, in many cases, their lifestyle.
Steve Kroft: It's like a political slush fund.
Trevor Potter: That's exactly what it is.
It's a political slush fund.
Over time, we've had them.
They've been outlawed.
They spring back in new guises, and this is the latest guise.
Potter says they are essentially personal political expense accounts financed largely by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Leadership PACs are now the second largest political revenue stream for members of Congress.
Peter Schwiezer: You can use them for babysitting, paying for babysitters.
You can use them for paying for car service.
You can use them for travel.
Nobody's really checking to see whether this is personal or legitimate business expense.
Back in 2006, North Carolina senator and presidential candidate John Edwards used his leadership PAC to pay his mistress Rielle Hunter $114,000 to make a campaign video.
And Republican Congressman Ander Crenshaw of Florida spent $32,000 hosting a tour of California wineries for a group of contributors from the defense industry, which he has some oversight of.
Peter Schweizer: Look, they're not having leadership PAC meetings at the Hampton Inn down the road.
They're going to the premier golfing and resorts in the United States and in-- sometimes around the world.
And that's ostensibly where they're doing this leadership PAC work.
For example, Democratic Congressman Robert Andrews of New Jersey used $16,000 from his leadership PAC "the committee to strengthen America" to fly his family to Scotland, ostensibly to attend the wedding of a friend that he was thinking about hiring as a political consultant.
Peter Schweizer: Why he needed to meet him in Edinburgh, Scotland at a four-star resort, I think, is open to question.
Peter Schweizer: So they will categorize them as something related to the leadership PAC.
But in reality, they're for personal use.
We wanted to talk to Congressman Andrews about his leadership PAC and the family trip to Scotland, but were turned down.
We did manage to find him at a hearing, and passed him a note announcing our presence.
Andrews, it turns out is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for misusing campaign funds to advance the career of his daughter.
He agreed to talk to us outside.
Steve Kroft: What about this trip to Scotland? Robert Andrews: I follow all the rules, met the standards, and there is a matter pending before the House Ethics Committee.
Under those rules, my obligation's not to talk about the investigation until it's over.
Steve Kroft: We talked to the Ethics Committee.
They said they have no problem with you talking to us about this.
Robert Andrews: Well, it's my understanding that the rules are that, when there's a pending matter, I'm supposed to keep it confidential and so are they.
So, I'm going to follow those rules.
Steve Kroft: These leadership PACs have been described by a lot of people as sort of political slush funds.
Do you agree with that? Robert Andrews: You know, I think we should take a look at having clearer rules at what they can and cannot be spent for.
I'd be for that.
That's what almost everyone in Congress says, but no one really seems to want reform.
It should be pointed out that not all congressmen use their PACs for their personal benefit, but the Federal Election Commission has called the level of abuse substantial.
Its former chairman, Trevor Potter, says the commission has consistently recommended to Congress that it should outlaw the personal use of leadership PACs.
Steve Kroft: And what's happened to that recommendation? Trevor Potter: Nothing.
It enters a black hole.
That's because the leadership PACs have become a political annuity for Congress that members can cash in when they leave office, or hold onto for the future.
Trevor Potter: What you see more often is that members will keep the leadership PAC and they will use it in retirement for everything that is vaguely a political expense.
If they become a lobbyist, which about half of members who leave Congress do nowadays, that becomes their lobbying slush fund.
So it just keeps going, at least until death.
Steve Kroft: And even beyond death.
Trevor Potter: Well, even beyond death, someone else is spending that money.
When Republican Congressman Paul Gillmor of Ohio died suddenly from a heart attack in contribution should go unspent.
Trevor Potter: What we know is that the staff went off to a number of dinners and pizza parties and other events using the leadership PAC money.
What they said was, 'Well, it's a grieving process.
And also, we need to talk to each other about getting new jobs, and this is a way to do it.
' Steve Kroft: And nobody had any problems with that? Trevor Potter: The problem is it's not illegal.
There are lots of things in Washington that would seem to be illegal but really aren't, if you know your way through the loopholes.
Melanie Sloan is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a small group that tracks campaign expenditures.
As we said earlier it's against the law to use campaign funds for personal use, but Sloan says it's perfectly acceptable to use campaign funds to hire your wife, husband, children, grandchildren and in-laws.
Melanie Sloan: While there are anti-nepotism rules that prevent them from hiring their family members on the official staff-- they can indeed hire them on the campaign payroll.
And do.
Steve Kroft: And they do? Melanie Sloan: And they do.
Sloan says there are at least 75 members of Congress who have hired members of their family to work on their campaign and paid them with political contributions.
Until Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas retired last year he seemed to be the leader with six family members on the campaign payroll -- daughter, daughter's mother in-law, three grandchildren and a grandchild in-law.
Paying them a total of $304,000 over the past two election cycles.
But Paul only ranked third in total payouts to family members -- behind former Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis and Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters both of California.
Steve Kroft: For some congressmen and senators, this is sort of a family business.
Melanie Sloan: Absolutely.
It is a family business.
They have members of their family on the campaign payroll.
And they also will often have members of their family who are lobbyists and lobby on issues in which the member may even be working.
We were interested in talking to Republican Congressman Rodney Alexander who had just retired midterm, after winning a campaign with no Democratic opposition last year.
A race in which he paid his two daughters a total of $130,000.
Steve Kroft: Hi.
Good.
Congressman? Steve Kroft from 60 Minutes.
We just wanted to ask you about both your daughters on the campaign staff? Steve Kroft: I mean, the figures that we have according to the reports are $73,000 to Lisa Lowe, and $57,000 to Ginger.
Rodney Alexander: That's for a two-year, that's for the election cycle.
Steve Kroft: What exactly did they do? Can you tell me? Rodney Alexander: Do everything that others do for other campaigns-- Whatever they did it couldn't have been that stressful.
Alexander won 78 percent of the vote against a libertarian candidate who wanted to abolish the IRS.
Steve Kroft: I mean, to some people, it just looks like you're using your campaign fund to enrich your family.
Rodney Alexander: Well, somebody has to do that work, Steve.
Steve Kroft: So, you kept it in the family? Rodney Alexander: Well I kept it with somebody that I can trust and if one can't trust their daughter, then who can they trust? Peter Schweizer: I think it's the kind of nepotism that, in large parts of American society, we frown about.
I mean, in corporate America, a lot of corporations have policies that relate to nepotism and the hiring and firing of individual people.
Peter Schweizer: But Congress has created this domain that allows them to decide whether something is ethical or whether something is good.
And it's another example, unfortunately, where the rules that apply to the rest of us don't really apply to members of Congress.
In January, Sen.
David Vitter of Louisiana introduced a bill to try and rectify the situation.
It would prohibit members from paying relatives with campaign or leadership accounts.
[Sen.
Vitter: That is a loophole, an area of abuse that we must close.
.]
So far, Sen.
Vitter has not found a single co-sponsor.
And no one is the least bit surprised.
Melanie Sloan: Everyone in Washington knows this goes on.
It's well-known, an open secret.
The problem is people in Ohio and New Mexico have no idea what's going on here in Washington.
Sloan says another way congressmen can personally benefit from the use of political contributions is by making personal loans to their campaign funds, then charging above market and sometimes exorbitant interest rates.
Sloan's organization found at least 15 cases, with the worst offender being Democratic Congresswoman Grace Napolitano who charged her campaign 18 percent.
Steve Kroft: How much money did she loan her campaign? Melanie Sloan: She loaned herself $150,000 and over a 12-year period took in $228,000 in interest.
Steve Kroft: I think everybody would like that investment.
Melanie Sloan: I think so.
Steve Kroft: And that's legal.
Melanie Sloan: And that's legal.
After weeks of trying to get an interview with Congresswoman Napolitano, we finally cornered her outside a meeting of the Hispanic Caucus.
She told us that as a woman and a minority, banks wouldn't lend her money, so she had to she withdraw $150,000 from an investment account to lend it to her campaign.
Steve Kroft: You loaned money to your campaign and then charged the campaign 18 percent interest? Grace Napolitano: That is correct.
Grace Napolitano: To be able to do a lot of the things I had to do were not feasible unless I did what I had to do.
And so at that point, that's what was recommended, and that's what I went with.
Steve Kroft: I don't think there's anything wrong with loaning your campaign money.
But then collecting 18 percent interest from your campaign seems a little too much.
Grace Napolitano: Would you go out and get a loan and not get charged interest? Steve Kroft: It's still 18 percent and $228,000 in interest.
Grace Napolitano: You like to favor 18 percent.
Steve Kroft: I do like to favor.
I mean, that's what the Mafia gets.
Grace Napolitano: It isn't like I've really profited.
I still live in the same house.
I drive a small car.
I am not a billionaire, or a millionaire, for that matter.
Steve Kroft: Did your campaign contributors know that you were paying back a loan, charging the campaign committee 18 percent? Grace Napolitano: Well, you don't go out and publicize that, but they know that I had a campaign debt.
Melanie Sloan: When folks are asked for campaign donations and when they make campaign donations, they are doing it because they are in sync with that member of Congress's views and they want to see them pushing policies and get reelected.
I don't think they have any idea that some of that money is actually going into the member's personal bank account.
There are currently two, modest ethics reform bills pending in Congress that would change a small part of what we've been talking about, one sponsored by a Senate Republican, the other by a House Democrat.
Neither has a prayer of even being debated.
Peter Schweizer: We hear a lot about how there's so much partisan fighting in Washington, Steve.
Here's a great example of bipartisanship.
Both sides like this current system.
Dick Cheney is one of the most polarizing figures in America.
But whatever your opinion of him, you'll be surprised to learn that during his years in government, his biggest fight was for his own survival.
He has been the beneficiary of nearly every medical breakthrough to combat heart disease over the last 35 years, including a heart transplant at the age of 71.
And as you'll hear tonight, many of those innovations came just in time to save his life.
It's all revealed in a new book called "Heart," that he's written with his cardiologist Jonathan Reiner.
It's a medical story, but also a story about how his disease intersected with pivotal moments in modern history.
Cheney's health was so tied to his political career, just he took a historic and unprecedented action.
Dick Cheney: Basically, what I did was I resigned the vice presidency effective March 28, 2001.
Sanjay Gupta: So nearly, for your entire time as vice president, there was a letter of resignation sitting there.
Dick Cheney: Pending.
Sanjay Gupta: Pending.
Cheney discovered there was no provision in the constitution to replace a vice president who is alive, but incapacitated.
So he drew up a letter of resignation to give to the president.
Dick Cheney: It says, "In accordance with Section 20 of Title Three of the United States code, I, Richard B.
Cheney, hereby resign the office of Vice President of the United States Sanjay Gupta: How did President Bush react when you told him about this? Dick Cheney: A little surprised.
But he thought it was a good idea.
It was just three years ago Cheney says that people gasped, when they saw how frail he had become.
Today, just 20 months after his heart transplant, Cheney's weight is back to normal, the color has returned to his skin - he has no shortness of breath.
Sanjay Gupta: How are you feeling? Dick Cheney: Fantastic.
Now I'm to the point where-- I literally, you know, feel like I have a new heart.
A lot more energy-- than I had previously.
There aren't any real physical limits on what I do.
I fish, I hunt.
And-- I don't ski, but that's because of my knees, not my heart.
So it's been a miracle.
Dick Cheney is a product of modern medicine at its best.
He has suffered five heart attacks, undergone open heart surgery, multiple catheterizations and angioplasties, had a defibrillator implanted, and a pump attached directly to his heart -- all of that before his transplant at age of death a breakthrough in medical technology extended his life.
Bad hearts run in Dick Cheney's family, and early on he did little to take care of himself.
He had his first cigarette at age 12, and by the time he was President Ford's chief of staff at age 34, his daily staples included fatty food, beer and up to three packs a day.
Dick Cheney: All the cigarette companies donated cigarettes in a white box with gold trim around it embossed with the presidential seal.
That was kind of, if you were in a cocktail party, or maybe even Washington, and whipped out your presidential cigarettes and lit it up with a park of matches from Air Force One, that was sort of a status symbol.
After his first White House stint, Cheney returned to Wyoming to run for Congress.
At just 37, his genetics and his lifestyle caught up with him.
He suffered his first heart attack, and doctors thought he should quit the race, but he didn't want to hear it.
Sanjay Gupta: You were pretty persuasive because, I mean, they said, "it would be wise to drop out of this at the present time.
" Dick Cheney: They said that in the medical records.
Sanjay Gupta: They didn't tell you that? Dick Cheney: Well, I don't recall.
What I took away from the conversations was that key phrase is "hard work never killed anyone.
" Sanjay Gupta: Patients like to hear what they want to hear.
Dick Cheney: And that may well have been the case here, as well, too.
But they also emphasized that stress comes from doing something you don't want to be doing.
He won that election and five more after that, but his heart disease was steadily progressing.
By the time Cheney took over as the first President Bush's secretary of Defense in 1989, he'd suffered three heart attacks and undergone quadruple bypass surgery.
It was a time of global upheaval.
And Dick Cheney was in the center of it all - the collapse of communism, the uprising in China's Tiananmen Square and the first Gulf War.
Dick Cheney: Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines prepare for one of the largest land assaults of modern times.
Sanjay Gupta: Looking back, do you think the stress affected your heart disease and your overall health? Dick Cheney: I simply don't buy the notion that it contributed to my heart disease.
It was in fact that getting back to work, getting back to that job, whatever that job might be, was important enough that I, in fact, kept 'em separate, I guess would be the way to think about it.
Sanjay Gupta: But I do wonder, as a doctor, is that really plausible? Can you really keep such a significant medical history and such a significant job separate? Dick Cheney: I did.
But when George W.
Bush asked Cheney to be his running mate in 2000, there was enough concern that the Bush campaign sought out the opinion of world renowned Texas heart surgeon Denton Cooley.
After speaking with Cheney's cardiologist, Dr.
Jonathan Reiner, Dr.
Cooley told the Bush campaign that Cheney was in good health with normal cardiac function.
Sanjay Gupta: The normal cardiac function wasn't true.
Dick Cheney: I'm not responsible for that.
I didn't know what took place between the doctors.
Sanjay Gupta: This idea that you have this respected heart surgeon from Texas who didn't see you, didn't examine you, and then writes something saying that you have normal cardiac function.
That just wasn't true, Mr.
Vice President.
Dick Cheney: Go ask Denton Cooley about that.
Sanjay Gupta: But sir, you saw it.
Dick Cheney: Listen to me, I think the bottom line is: was I up to the task of being vice president? And there's no question.
I think based upon the fact that I did it for eight years that they were right.
Sanjay Gupta: How were they able to say that you were able to do the job? Dick Cheney: The way I look at it Sanjay is that first of all, I didn't seek the job.
The president came to me and asked me to be his vice president.
The party nominated me.
The doctors that consulted on it reached a common conclusion and the people elected me.
Now what basis do I override the decision making process? Do you want to have an offshoot where we come check with Sanjay Gupta and say, "Gee, is he up to the task?" That's not the way it works.
Despite Cheney's insistence that he was fit for office, and just four months after being cleared by his doctors, Cheney suffered another heart attack, his fourth.
[Dick Cheney: It was there and it was chest discomfort.
Sufficient so I thought I ought to check it out.
.]
This time it came while the country was embroiled in the 2000 presidential recount.
Cheney needed a stent to prop open a clogged artery.
[Swearing in: Rehnquist: Are you read to take the oath of office? Dick Cheney: I am.
Rehnquist: Please raise your hand and repeat after me.
.]
Yet again modern medicine had helped Dick Cheney dodge a bullet.
But it was just nine months later when Cheney confronted, what he considers, one of the biggest challenges of his life: 9 / 11.
With President Bush in Florida, Cheney was in a bunker under the White House helping make decisions, even given authority by the president to shoot down passenger airliners.
Sanjay Gupta: I mean as far as stress goes, and again, as a doctor - with your heart history, how worried were you about just your health in the midst of all this? Dick Cheney: Didn't occur to me.
Sanjay Gupta: Not at all? Dick Cheney: No.
I didn't think about my health.
I was thinking about the problem we were dealing with.
But what Cheney didn't know was that his cardiologist Jonathan Reiner had received the results of a blood test that morning showing his potassium levels were dangerously high, a condition called hyperkalemia.
Sanjay Gupta: Big concern, I mean, how big are we talking about? Jonathan Reiner: Potassium of 6.
9 can kill you.
Sanjay Gupta: This is a huge problem.
Jonathan Reiner: Yeah.
I laid awake that night, you know, watching the replays of the towers come down and now thinking that, "Oh great, the vice president's gonna die tonight from hyperkalemia.
" Another blood test the next day showed Cheney's potassium levels were normal.
But this level of scrutiny over Dick Cheney's health is a reminder he is not an ordinary patient.
And caring for him often required extraordinary precautions.
In 2007, when Cheney needed his implanted defibrillator replaced, Dr.
Reiner ordered the manufacturer to disable the wireless feature - fearing a terrorist could assassinate the vice president by sending a signal to the device, telling it to shock his heart into cardiac arrest.
Jonathan Reiner: And it seemed to me to be a bad idea for the vice president to have a device that maybe somebody on a rope line or in the next hotel room or downstairs might be able to get into-- hack into.
And I worried that someone could kill you.
It might sound farfetched, but years later this scene from the SHOWTIME drama "Homeland" showed just how it could be done to the fictional vice president.
Sanjay Gupta: What did you think when you watched that? Dick Cheney: Well, I was aware of the danger, if you will, that existed but I found it credible.
Because I know from the experience we had and the necessity for adjusting my own device that it was an accurate portrayal of what was possible.
The precariousness of Cheney's physical health raises questions about his state of mind when he was helping make decisions, including those about war and peace.
Sanjay Gupta: You were instrumental in many big decisions for the country, including going into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Dick Cheney: And terrorist surveillance programs and enhanced interrogation programs-- Sanjay Gupta: Terrorist surveillance programs, wiretapping, enhanced interrogation.
You'd had had four heart attacks, three catheterizations at this point, a defibrillator, bypass surgery.
Dick Cheney: Right.
Sanjay Gupta: Did you worry about your physical health impacting your judgment and your cognition? Dick Cheney: No.
Sanjay Gupta: Not at all? Dick Cheney: No.
Sanjay Gupta: Were you the best you could be? Dick Cheney: You know, I was as good as I could be, you know, given the fact I was 60-some years old at that point and a heart patient.
Cheney didn't want to acknowledge numerous studies that show a significant connection between severe heart disease and memory loss, depression, a decline in decision-making abilities and impaired cognition.
Or that he could be one of the many patients vulnerable to these side effects.
Sanjay Gupta: Did they talk at all about potential side effects because of limited blood flow to the brain, on cognition, on judgment? Was that something that you had heard about in any way? Dick Cheney: Yeah.
Sanjay Gupta: Both, you didn't know about it? You weren't worried about it? Dick Cheney: No.
Sanjay Gupta: Did anyone counsel you at all on that? Dick Cheney: Not that I recall.
Sanjay Gupta: What about even things like depression? Dick Cheney: No.
No.
And that's all he wanted to say about that.
But what Dick Cheney was eager to talk about was his transplant, detailed in his book, "Heart.
" Dick Cheney: When you emerge from that gift of life itself, there's a tremendous feeling of emotion, but it's very positive.
I think my first words when I came out from under the anesthetic when they said it had worked great was, "Hot damn.
" Literally.
Cheney and Dr.
Reiner wanted to show us just how dramatic his transformation has been.
This is an image of Cheney's ravaged and diseased heart just moments after it was removed.
Jonathan Reiner: This is a rather large basin.
And here is your heart.
Dick Cheney: It's the one I lived with for Jonathan Reiner: A normal heart would basically be about the size of two fists clamped together like this, maybe even a little bit smaller.
And you see this is about half a foot wide.
Sanjay Gupta: Old heart, new heart.
Dick Cheney: Old heart, new heart.
Its one of those situation where bigger isn't necessarily better.
That's because a bigger heart can't effectively pump blood through the body.
The X-ray on the left shows Cheney's enlarged heart - twice the normal size and pushing on his other organs.
On the right, his new heart.
And then there's this comparison again on the left, Cheney's diseased heart - weakened, with narrowed arteries.
And his new heart - with healthy vessels and no blockages.
Dick Cheney: Dramatically displays how sick I was.
Today Cheney says he's taking good care of his new heart.
He spends much of his time back in Wyoming with his family - and playing rodeo hand to granddaughter Gracie.
Dick Cheney: You wake up every morning with a smile on your face because you've got a new day you never expected to have.
And there's a sense of wonderment.
Nothing short of magical.
Sanjay Gupta: You know, magical, wonderment, you're words.
Those aren't words you typically hear, or expect to hear from you Dick Cheney: Like Darth Vader.
Well, those are the words I choose to describe it.
We very nearly lost one of the wonders of the world.
The humpback whale was efficiently slaughtered until there were only a few thousand left.
But in one of the great success stories in conservation the humpback is making a comeback.
It's a good thing too because what we've learned about them lately makes the humpback one of the most fascinating animals ever to grace the Earth.
There are many species of whales and one by one they're coming off the endangered species list.
Whale hunting is rare today but there is still a place on the high seas where there's a battle to eliminate the last vestiges of whaling.
There we found a man who has risked life and limb to end any threat to whales once and for all.
You're watching the ramming of a Japanese whaling ship by a combative conservationist group, lead by American Paul Watson.
He's trying to stop the transfer of a minke whale the Japanese just killed to the factory ship that will cut it up.
Commercial whaling is banned by international agreements.
But the Japanese and a few others are still launching harpoons.
These scenes were shot for the Animal Plant series "Whale Wars" -- and these scenes were shot by the whalers themselves who say this is evidence that Watson is nothing more than a pirate.
The Japanese obtained an international arrest warrant for him.
So, for the last year, this conservationist, or pirate, has lived on the world's oceans unable to set foot on land.
Scott Pelley: We are headed out to international waters where Watson lives on a ship beyond the reach of the law.
But before he would meet with us, we had to agree that we wouldn't say where we are, or even what ocean this is.
Suffice to say it involved several airplanes and many thousands of miles.
Towards the end of that journey, Watson sent this trimaran to pick us up.
This boat once set the speed record for circumnavigating the Earth.
He named the boat for an actress who's a supporter.
But to us it looked more Darth Vader than Brigitte Bardot.
Watson came to the Bardot from a floating hideout that we agreed not to show.
He is one of the founders of Greenpeace.
And now at the age of 62, he calls his new armada: Sea Shepherd.
Paul Watson: The simple fact is this, if the oceans die, we die.
Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd was set up to uphold those international laws and regulations protecting our oceans.
Scott Pelley: But why is that your job? Countries enforce laws.
Why are you doing this? Paul Watson: I just do not see the political will on the part of these governments to do anything.
Scott Pelley: But that makes you a vigilante.
You're deciding on your own that you're going to enforce these laws.
What gives you the right? Paul Watson: Because I want to survive.
And I want to make sure that my children survive.
And I'm not going to sit back and watch the oceans be destroyed because governments don't have the political or economic will to uphold these laws.
The whaling ban makes an exception for research.
And the Japanese proclaim that exception in tall letters on their ships.
They set their own quotas about 900 minkes, 50 fin whales and 50 humpbacks.
These are minkes.
And even though the Japanese reserve the right to kill humpbacks, they haven't, according to the International Whaling Commission.
Paul Watson: There is no scientific basis for what they're doing.
We have seen them take a whale onto the factory vessel.
There's no scientist there.
There's nobody measuring anything.
They simply cut them up, send them down below, and package them.
This is not science.
It's bogus.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague will be deciding whether Japan's whaling is really for research or should be stopped.
But while the whaling continues, Sea Shepherd fouls the Japanese plan with rope to catch their propellers.
The Japanese fire back with water, and ear-splitting sirens.
Sea Shepherd throws stink bombs.
The Japanese return concussion grenades.
Scott Pelley: You called Sea Shepherd, which you founded, the most aggressive, no-nonsense conservation organization in the world.
And you said, quote: "I don't believe in protests.
That is far too submissive.
" What do you mean? Paul Watson: Well protesting is sort of like, "Please, please, please, don't do that.
" But they'll do it anyway.
But they just ignore you.
So, protest is submissive.
We're not a protest organization.
We're an interventionist organization.
We intervene against illegal activities.
But this is what happened recently when Sea Shepherd tried to intervene.
The whaler kept coming and sheared the bow off Watson's $2 million boat which eventually sank.
No one was seriously hurt.
Watson claims he has cut the Japanese catch.
Because of these tactics, the same tactics that the Japanese say are illegal.
Scott Pelley: You're in sort of a prison, aren't you? Paul Watson: Well it's a pretty nice prison.
It's you know-- I don't mind being on the ocean.
It's a beautiful place and certainly the citizens out here tend to be more peaceful.
Scott Pelley: But when people call your tactics violent, how do you respond to that? I mean, you look at this footage, it looks violent.
It's hostile.
Paul Watson: The Japanese are committing violence against living whales.
We are not hurting anybody so we're not violent.
This battle is fought in the last place where humpback whales are considered "endangered" by the international agency that decides these things.
These "South Pacific" humpbacks feed here in the Antarctic summer then journey north 4,000 miles to mate.
This is where much of the research is done around a speck on the map called Rarotonga.
This volcanic island, part of the Cook Islands, is just 21 miles around with 10,000 residents and not a single traffic light.
Here we found the human who may know humpbacks best.
Nan Hauser: He's right behind the boat, hello beautiful.
He's putting on quite a lovely show for us and you just have to be careful and respect their space.
Scott Pelley: They take up a lot of space.
Nan Hauser is an American marine biologist who intended to come to Rarotonga for one month of research but that was 16 years ago.
Now her home and lab are on the side of the volcano and she spends her days eye to eye with her subjects.
Nan Hauser: As you watch them, as you see these massive animals and look at them in the eye and they're looking at you-- and they've never seen what a human looks like before-- and so they're curious about you.
And you're curious about them.
Humpbacks are acrobats.
Their fins are like wings up to 20 feet long.
They cooperate with each other to hunt for the krill and small fish they eat by the tons.
We've learned a lot about them in recent years and, some of it we know is because Nan Hauser has risked her life to discover it.
She's part of an international mission to harpoon humpbacks with small satellite transmitters.
That rubber boat feels tiny next to an animal Nan Hauser: It's very, very dangerous.
All they have to do is pick up their tail and give you a good whack and all your bones are broken and your organs are ruptured.
So it's very scary.
Very, very scary.
My heart is pounding.
When they surface to breathe, the transmitter, stuck in their blubber, sends a signal.
Now we know humpbacks can travel 10,000 miles a year, that's the world record for a mammal.
Eighty percent of their lives are spent submerged.
And this is where Nan Hauser has made some of her most beautiful discoveries.
Nan Hauser: Here we see a male standing on his head, upside down, singing a song.
They are motionless and the song bellows out.
The humpback song can be 20 minutes long.
And they repeat the same song again and again.
Males in one region will all sing the same song the same way.
But next year, they'll return with a new composition.
Scott Pelley: So, this is air somehow moving around inside their heads? That's making this sound even though they don't have vocal cords? Nan Hauser: Correct.
It's almost, I think, like taking a balloon full of air and going.
The sound carries for miles.
And Hauser believes, its all to mark their territory.
Nan Hauser: They take turns singing, perhaps to say, "My lungs are bigger.
I can hold my breath longer.
I can sing a more beautiful song.
I'm the dominant male.
I'm going to sing here so you move away and sing somewhere else.
" Scott Pelley: Can you do some of the sounds that you've heard? Nan Hauser: I think the most common whale sound is kind of a (makes sound).
But we get everything.
We've even had the laughing monkey, Ee, ee, ee, ee.
Creaky doors (makes sound).
Scott Pelley: What are they saying? Nan Hauser: We don't know.
Scott Pelley: So you speak whale.
But you don't understand it.
Nan Hauser: Absolutely.
But she does understand a calf's jaw clapping anger.
Hauser captured it when a mother went off to mate and left this calf behind.
Nan Hauser: He does a small clap.
Right here.
Scott Pelley: What does it mean? Nan Hauser: Now I know it means, "I'm upset and I'm gonna have a little bit of a temper tantrum.
" You can see him.
Hear him? Scott Pelley: He's saying, "Pay attention to me?" Nan Hauser: Exactly.
Humpbacks give birth to one calf a year.
So their comeback has been slow, but steady.
Before the whaling ban there were maybe 5,000 left in the world.
Now it's estimated there are 80,000.
The biggest threats to them these days are collisions with ships and the kind of miles long fishing line that wrapped up this whale.
Nan Hauser: They get wrapped up and then they get held underwater and they need to come up for air otherwise they suffer and they drown.
Hauser hopes that the satellite tags will mark migration routes so that man can steer clear.
History may show we stopped the global slaughter just in the nick of time.
Humpbacks are now found in every ocean.
Their numbers are back to about 30 percent of what they had been before whaling.
It's a sign that a fascinating and beautiful part of the planet is on the mend.
With all the talk about their irreconcilable political differences, we wanted to see if they shared any common ground.
And we found some.
For example, there seems to be a permanent majority in Congress that's completely satisfied with the current state of campaign financing and congressional ethics and members of both parties have institutionalized ways to skirt the rules.
Most Americans believe it's against the law for congressmen and senators to profit personally from their political office but it's an open secret in Washington that that's not the case.
As the saying goes the real scandal in Washington isn't what's illegal, it's what is legal.
Georgia Sen.
Saxby Chambliss likes golf, so much so that he spent more than $100,000 the past two years entertaining at some of the finest courses in the world.
New York congressman Gregory Meeks prefers football.
He spent $35,000 on NFL games.
All of this was paid for with political contributions -- all in the name of democracy Peter Schweizer: I think campaign fundraising is increasingly not just about winning elections.
It's a lifestyle subsidy.
Peter Schweizer, is an author and fellow at the Hoover Institution.
For the past few years, he and a team of researchers have been investigating the way congressmen and senators have personally benefited from the hundreds of millions of dollars in political contributions that have poured into the system.
Steve Kroft: I think most people have the impression that campaign funds cannot be used for personal expenses.
Is that true? Peter Schwiezer: Yes.
Regular campaign funds cannot, that's correct.
But there are ways around it.
Like all things in Washington, the devil is in the details, and loopholes are usually put in place for a reason.
For example, when Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, it plainly stated "a member shall convert no campaign funds to personal use.
" But soon afterwards congressional leaders quietly invented something called leadership PACs, political action committees that were not technically campaign funds and thus exempt from the personal use prohibition.
Steve Kroft: This is a loophole? Trevor Potter: Right.
That's correct.
Trevor Potter is a former chairman of the Federal Election Commission.
He says it didn't take long for congressmen and senators to figure out the distinct advantages of having a Leadership PAC, with no restrictions.
Trevor Potter: Since they weren't around when the ban on personal use was put into place, they're not covered by it.
And they can be used for literally anything.
Over time the leadership PACs that were created as a way for congressional leaders of both parties, to raise money and distribute it to their members, have evolved into something different.
Today, nearly every congressman and senator has a leadership PAC, not just the leaders.
And they are used to solicit contributions from friends and supporters in order to advance their political agendas, their careers and, in many cases, their lifestyle.
Steve Kroft: It's like a political slush fund.
Trevor Potter: That's exactly what it is.
It's a political slush fund.
Over time, we've had them.
They've been outlawed.
They spring back in new guises, and this is the latest guise.
Potter says they are essentially personal political expense accounts financed largely by lobbyists and special interest groups.
Leadership PACs are now the second largest political revenue stream for members of Congress.
Peter Schwiezer: You can use them for babysitting, paying for babysitters.
You can use them for paying for car service.
You can use them for travel.
Nobody's really checking to see whether this is personal or legitimate business expense.
Back in 2006, North Carolina senator and presidential candidate John Edwards used his leadership PAC to pay his mistress Rielle Hunter $114,000 to make a campaign video.
And Republican Congressman Ander Crenshaw of Florida spent $32,000 hosting a tour of California wineries for a group of contributors from the defense industry, which he has some oversight of.
Peter Schweizer: Look, they're not having leadership PAC meetings at the Hampton Inn down the road.
They're going to the premier golfing and resorts in the United States and in-- sometimes around the world.
And that's ostensibly where they're doing this leadership PAC work.
For example, Democratic Congressman Robert Andrews of New Jersey used $16,000 from his leadership PAC "the committee to strengthen America" to fly his family to Scotland, ostensibly to attend the wedding of a friend that he was thinking about hiring as a political consultant.
Peter Schweizer: Why he needed to meet him in Edinburgh, Scotland at a four-star resort, I think, is open to question.
Peter Schweizer: So they will categorize them as something related to the leadership PAC.
But in reality, they're for personal use.
We wanted to talk to Congressman Andrews about his leadership PAC and the family trip to Scotland, but were turned down.
We did manage to find him at a hearing, and passed him a note announcing our presence.
Andrews, it turns out is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for misusing campaign funds to advance the career of his daughter.
He agreed to talk to us outside.
Steve Kroft: What about this trip to Scotland? Robert Andrews: I follow all the rules, met the standards, and there is a matter pending before the House Ethics Committee.
Under those rules, my obligation's not to talk about the investigation until it's over.
Steve Kroft: We talked to the Ethics Committee.
They said they have no problem with you talking to us about this.
Robert Andrews: Well, it's my understanding that the rules are that, when there's a pending matter, I'm supposed to keep it confidential and so are they.
So, I'm going to follow those rules.
Steve Kroft: These leadership PACs have been described by a lot of people as sort of political slush funds.
Do you agree with that? Robert Andrews: You know, I think we should take a look at having clearer rules at what they can and cannot be spent for.
I'd be for that.
That's what almost everyone in Congress says, but no one really seems to want reform.
It should be pointed out that not all congressmen use their PACs for their personal benefit, but the Federal Election Commission has called the level of abuse substantial.
Its former chairman, Trevor Potter, says the commission has consistently recommended to Congress that it should outlaw the personal use of leadership PACs.
Steve Kroft: And what's happened to that recommendation? Trevor Potter: Nothing.
It enters a black hole.
That's because the leadership PACs have become a political annuity for Congress that members can cash in when they leave office, or hold onto for the future.
Trevor Potter: What you see more often is that members will keep the leadership PAC and they will use it in retirement for everything that is vaguely a political expense.
If they become a lobbyist, which about half of members who leave Congress do nowadays, that becomes their lobbying slush fund.
So it just keeps going, at least until death.
Steve Kroft: And even beyond death.
Trevor Potter: Well, even beyond death, someone else is spending that money.
When Republican Congressman Paul Gillmor of Ohio died suddenly from a heart attack in contribution should go unspent.
Trevor Potter: What we know is that the staff went off to a number of dinners and pizza parties and other events using the leadership PAC money.
What they said was, 'Well, it's a grieving process.
And also, we need to talk to each other about getting new jobs, and this is a way to do it.
' Steve Kroft: And nobody had any problems with that? Trevor Potter: The problem is it's not illegal.
There are lots of things in Washington that would seem to be illegal but really aren't, if you know your way through the loopholes.
Melanie Sloan is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a small group that tracks campaign expenditures.
As we said earlier it's against the law to use campaign funds for personal use, but Sloan says it's perfectly acceptable to use campaign funds to hire your wife, husband, children, grandchildren and in-laws.
Melanie Sloan: While there are anti-nepotism rules that prevent them from hiring their family members on the official staff-- they can indeed hire them on the campaign payroll.
And do.
Steve Kroft: And they do? Melanie Sloan: And they do.
Sloan says there are at least 75 members of Congress who have hired members of their family to work on their campaign and paid them with political contributions.
Until Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas retired last year he seemed to be the leader with six family members on the campaign payroll -- daughter, daughter's mother in-law, three grandchildren and a grandchild in-law.
Paying them a total of $304,000 over the past two election cycles.
But Paul only ranked third in total payouts to family members -- behind former Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis and Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters both of California.
Steve Kroft: For some congressmen and senators, this is sort of a family business.
Melanie Sloan: Absolutely.
It is a family business.
They have members of their family on the campaign payroll.
And they also will often have members of their family who are lobbyists and lobby on issues in which the member may even be working.
We were interested in talking to Republican Congressman Rodney Alexander who had just retired midterm, after winning a campaign with no Democratic opposition last year.
A race in which he paid his two daughters a total of $130,000.
Steve Kroft: Hi.
Good.
Congressman? Steve Kroft from 60 Minutes.
We just wanted to ask you about both your daughters on the campaign staff? Steve Kroft: I mean, the figures that we have according to the reports are $73,000 to Lisa Lowe, and $57,000 to Ginger.
Rodney Alexander: That's for a two-year, that's for the election cycle.
Steve Kroft: What exactly did they do? Can you tell me? Rodney Alexander: Do everything that others do for other campaigns-- Whatever they did it couldn't have been that stressful.
Alexander won 78 percent of the vote against a libertarian candidate who wanted to abolish the IRS.
Steve Kroft: I mean, to some people, it just looks like you're using your campaign fund to enrich your family.
Rodney Alexander: Well, somebody has to do that work, Steve.
Steve Kroft: So, you kept it in the family? Rodney Alexander: Well I kept it with somebody that I can trust and if one can't trust their daughter, then who can they trust? Peter Schweizer: I think it's the kind of nepotism that, in large parts of American society, we frown about.
I mean, in corporate America, a lot of corporations have policies that relate to nepotism and the hiring and firing of individual people.
Peter Schweizer: But Congress has created this domain that allows them to decide whether something is ethical or whether something is good.
And it's another example, unfortunately, where the rules that apply to the rest of us don't really apply to members of Congress.
In January, Sen.
David Vitter of Louisiana introduced a bill to try and rectify the situation.
It would prohibit members from paying relatives with campaign or leadership accounts.
[Sen.
Vitter: That is a loophole, an area of abuse that we must close.
.]
So far, Sen.
Vitter has not found a single co-sponsor.
And no one is the least bit surprised.
Melanie Sloan: Everyone in Washington knows this goes on.
It's well-known, an open secret.
The problem is people in Ohio and New Mexico have no idea what's going on here in Washington.
Sloan says another way congressmen can personally benefit from the use of political contributions is by making personal loans to their campaign funds, then charging above market and sometimes exorbitant interest rates.
Sloan's organization found at least 15 cases, with the worst offender being Democratic Congresswoman Grace Napolitano who charged her campaign 18 percent.
Steve Kroft: How much money did she loan her campaign? Melanie Sloan: She loaned herself $150,000 and over a 12-year period took in $228,000 in interest.
Steve Kroft: I think everybody would like that investment.
Melanie Sloan: I think so.
Steve Kroft: And that's legal.
Melanie Sloan: And that's legal.
After weeks of trying to get an interview with Congresswoman Napolitano, we finally cornered her outside a meeting of the Hispanic Caucus.
She told us that as a woman and a minority, banks wouldn't lend her money, so she had to she withdraw $150,000 from an investment account to lend it to her campaign.
Steve Kroft: You loaned money to your campaign and then charged the campaign 18 percent interest? Grace Napolitano: That is correct.
Grace Napolitano: To be able to do a lot of the things I had to do were not feasible unless I did what I had to do.
And so at that point, that's what was recommended, and that's what I went with.
Steve Kroft: I don't think there's anything wrong with loaning your campaign money.
But then collecting 18 percent interest from your campaign seems a little too much.
Grace Napolitano: Would you go out and get a loan and not get charged interest? Steve Kroft: It's still 18 percent and $228,000 in interest.
Grace Napolitano: You like to favor 18 percent.
Steve Kroft: I do like to favor.
I mean, that's what the Mafia gets.
Grace Napolitano: It isn't like I've really profited.
I still live in the same house.
I drive a small car.
I am not a billionaire, or a millionaire, for that matter.
Steve Kroft: Did your campaign contributors know that you were paying back a loan, charging the campaign committee 18 percent? Grace Napolitano: Well, you don't go out and publicize that, but they know that I had a campaign debt.
Melanie Sloan: When folks are asked for campaign donations and when they make campaign donations, they are doing it because they are in sync with that member of Congress's views and they want to see them pushing policies and get reelected.
I don't think they have any idea that some of that money is actually going into the member's personal bank account.
There are currently two, modest ethics reform bills pending in Congress that would change a small part of what we've been talking about, one sponsored by a Senate Republican, the other by a House Democrat.
Neither has a prayer of even being debated.
Peter Schweizer: We hear a lot about how there's so much partisan fighting in Washington, Steve.
Here's a great example of bipartisanship.
Both sides like this current system.
Dick Cheney is one of the most polarizing figures in America.
But whatever your opinion of him, you'll be surprised to learn that during his years in government, his biggest fight was for his own survival.
He has been the beneficiary of nearly every medical breakthrough to combat heart disease over the last 35 years, including a heart transplant at the age of 71.
And as you'll hear tonight, many of those innovations came just in time to save his life.
It's all revealed in a new book called "Heart," that he's written with his cardiologist Jonathan Reiner.
It's a medical story, but also a story about how his disease intersected with pivotal moments in modern history.
Cheney's health was so tied to his political career, just he took a historic and unprecedented action.
Dick Cheney: Basically, what I did was I resigned the vice presidency effective March 28, 2001.
Sanjay Gupta: So nearly, for your entire time as vice president, there was a letter of resignation sitting there.
Dick Cheney: Pending.
Sanjay Gupta: Pending.
Cheney discovered there was no provision in the constitution to replace a vice president who is alive, but incapacitated.
So he drew up a letter of resignation to give to the president.
Dick Cheney: It says, "In accordance with Section 20 of Title Three of the United States code, I, Richard B.
Cheney, hereby resign the office of Vice President of the United States Sanjay Gupta: How did President Bush react when you told him about this? Dick Cheney: A little surprised.
But he thought it was a good idea.
It was just three years ago Cheney says that people gasped, when they saw how frail he had become.
Today, just 20 months after his heart transplant, Cheney's weight is back to normal, the color has returned to his skin - he has no shortness of breath.
Sanjay Gupta: How are you feeling? Dick Cheney: Fantastic.
Now I'm to the point where-- I literally, you know, feel like I have a new heart.
A lot more energy-- than I had previously.
There aren't any real physical limits on what I do.
I fish, I hunt.
And-- I don't ski, but that's because of my knees, not my heart.
So it's been a miracle.
Dick Cheney is a product of modern medicine at its best.
He has suffered five heart attacks, undergone open heart surgery, multiple catheterizations and angioplasties, had a defibrillator implanted, and a pump attached directly to his heart -- all of that before his transplant at age of death a breakthrough in medical technology extended his life.
Bad hearts run in Dick Cheney's family, and early on he did little to take care of himself.
He had his first cigarette at age 12, and by the time he was President Ford's chief of staff at age 34, his daily staples included fatty food, beer and up to three packs a day.
Dick Cheney: All the cigarette companies donated cigarettes in a white box with gold trim around it embossed with the presidential seal.
That was kind of, if you were in a cocktail party, or maybe even Washington, and whipped out your presidential cigarettes and lit it up with a park of matches from Air Force One, that was sort of a status symbol.
After his first White House stint, Cheney returned to Wyoming to run for Congress.
At just 37, his genetics and his lifestyle caught up with him.
He suffered his first heart attack, and doctors thought he should quit the race, but he didn't want to hear it.
Sanjay Gupta: You were pretty persuasive because, I mean, they said, "it would be wise to drop out of this at the present time.
" Dick Cheney: They said that in the medical records.
Sanjay Gupta: They didn't tell you that? Dick Cheney: Well, I don't recall.
What I took away from the conversations was that key phrase is "hard work never killed anyone.
" Sanjay Gupta: Patients like to hear what they want to hear.
Dick Cheney: And that may well have been the case here, as well, too.
But they also emphasized that stress comes from doing something you don't want to be doing.
He won that election and five more after that, but his heart disease was steadily progressing.
By the time Cheney took over as the first President Bush's secretary of Defense in 1989, he'd suffered three heart attacks and undergone quadruple bypass surgery.
It was a time of global upheaval.
And Dick Cheney was in the center of it all - the collapse of communism, the uprising in China's Tiananmen Square and the first Gulf War.
Dick Cheney: Our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines prepare for one of the largest land assaults of modern times.
Sanjay Gupta: Looking back, do you think the stress affected your heart disease and your overall health? Dick Cheney: I simply don't buy the notion that it contributed to my heart disease.
It was in fact that getting back to work, getting back to that job, whatever that job might be, was important enough that I, in fact, kept 'em separate, I guess would be the way to think about it.
Sanjay Gupta: But I do wonder, as a doctor, is that really plausible? Can you really keep such a significant medical history and such a significant job separate? Dick Cheney: I did.
But when George W.
Bush asked Cheney to be his running mate in 2000, there was enough concern that the Bush campaign sought out the opinion of world renowned Texas heart surgeon Denton Cooley.
After speaking with Cheney's cardiologist, Dr.
Jonathan Reiner, Dr.
Cooley told the Bush campaign that Cheney was in good health with normal cardiac function.
Sanjay Gupta: The normal cardiac function wasn't true.
Dick Cheney: I'm not responsible for that.
I didn't know what took place between the doctors.
Sanjay Gupta: This idea that you have this respected heart surgeon from Texas who didn't see you, didn't examine you, and then writes something saying that you have normal cardiac function.
That just wasn't true, Mr.
Vice President.
Dick Cheney: Go ask Denton Cooley about that.
Sanjay Gupta: But sir, you saw it.
Dick Cheney: Listen to me, I think the bottom line is: was I up to the task of being vice president? And there's no question.
I think based upon the fact that I did it for eight years that they were right.
Sanjay Gupta: How were they able to say that you were able to do the job? Dick Cheney: The way I look at it Sanjay is that first of all, I didn't seek the job.
The president came to me and asked me to be his vice president.
The party nominated me.
The doctors that consulted on it reached a common conclusion and the people elected me.
Now what basis do I override the decision making process? Do you want to have an offshoot where we come check with Sanjay Gupta and say, "Gee, is he up to the task?" That's not the way it works.
Despite Cheney's insistence that he was fit for office, and just four months after being cleared by his doctors, Cheney suffered another heart attack, his fourth.
[Dick Cheney: It was there and it was chest discomfort.
Sufficient so I thought I ought to check it out.
.]
This time it came while the country was embroiled in the 2000 presidential recount.
Cheney needed a stent to prop open a clogged artery.
[Swearing in: Rehnquist: Are you read to take the oath of office? Dick Cheney: I am.
Rehnquist: Please raise your hand and repeat after me.
.]
Yet again modern medicine had helped Dick Cheney dodge a bullet.
But it was just nine months later when Cheney confronted, what he considers, one of the biggest challenges of his life: 9 / 11.
With President Bush in Florida, Cheney was in a bunker under the White House helping make decisions, even given authority by the president to shoot down passenger airliners.
Sanjay Gupta: I mean as far as stress goes, and again, as a doctor - with your heart history, how worried were you about just your health in the midst of all this? Dick Cheney: Didn't occur to me.
Sanjay Gupta: Not at all? Dick Cheney: No.
I didn't think about my health.
I was thinking about the problem we were dealing with.
But what Cheney didn't know was that his cardiologist Jonathan Reiner had received the results of a blood test that morning showing his potassium levels were dangerously high, a condition called hyperkalemia.
Sanjay Gupta: Big concern, I mean, how big are we talking about? Jonathan Reiner: Potassium of 6.
9 can kill you.
Sanjay Gupta: This is a huge problem.
Jonathan Reiner: Yeah.
I laid awake that night, you know, watching the replays of the towers come down and now thinking that, "Oh great, the vice president's gonna die tonight from hyperkalemia.
" Another blood test the next day showed Cheney's potassium levels were normal.
But this level of scrutiny over Dick Cheney's health is a reminder he is not an ordinary patient.
And caring for him often required extraordinary precautions.
In 2007, when Cheney needed his implanted defibrillator replaced, Dr.
Reiner ordered the manufacturer to disable the wireless feature - fearing a terrorist could assassinate the vice president by sending a signal to the device, telling it to shock his heart into cardiac arrest.
Jonathan Reiner: And it seemed to me to be a bad idea for the vice president to have a device that maybe somebody on a rope line or in the next hotel room or downstairs might be able to get into-- hack into.
And I worried that someone could kill you.
It might sound farfetched, but years later this scene from the SHOWTIME drama "Homeland" showed just how it could be done to the fictional vice president.
Sanjay Gupta: What did you think when you watched that? Dick Cheney: Well, I was aware of the danger, if you will, that existed but I found it credible.
Because I know from the experience we had and the necessity for adjusting my own device that it was an accurate portrayal of what was possible.
The precariousness of Cheney's physical health raises questions about his state of mind when he was helping make decisions, including those about war and peace.
Sanjay Gupta: You were instrumental in many big decisions for the country, including going into Afghanistan and Iraq.
Dick Cheney: And terrorist surveillance programs and enhanced interrogation programs-- Sanjay Gupta: Terrorist surveillance programs, wiretapping, enhanced interrogation.
You'd had had four heart attacks, three catheterizations at this point, a defibrillator, bypass surgery.
Dick Cheney: Right.
Sanjay Gupta: Did you worry about your physical health impacting your judgment and your cognition? Dick Cheney: No.
Sanjay Gupta: Not at all? Dick Cheney: No.
Sanjay Gupta: Were you the best you could be? Dick Cheney: You know, I was as good as I could be, you know, given the fact I was 60-some years old at that point and a heart patient.
Cheney didn't want to acknowledge numerous studies that show a significant connection between severe heart disease and memory loss, depression, a decline in decision-making abilities and impaired cognition.
Or that he could be one of the many patients vulnerable to these side effects.
Sanjay Gupta: Did they talk at all about potential side effects because of limited blood flow to the brain, on cognition, on judgment? Was that something that you had heard about in any way? Dick Cheney: Yeah.
Sanjay Gupta: Both, you didn't know about it? You weren't worried about it? Dick Cheney: No.
Sanjay Gupta: Did anyone counsel you at all on that? Dick Cheney: Not that I recall.
Sanjay Gupta: What about even things like depression? Dick Cheney: No.
No.
And that's all he wanted to say about that.
But what Dick Cheney was eager to talk about was his transplant, detailed in his book, "Heart.
" Dick Cheney: When you emerge from that gift of life itself, there's a tremendous feeling of emotion, but it's very positive.
I think my first words when I came out from under the anesthetic when they said it had worked great was, "Hot damn.
" Literally.
Cheney and Dr.
Reiner wanted to show us just how dramatic his transformation has been.
This is an image of Cheney's ravaged and diseased heart just moments after it was removed.
Jonathan Reiner: This is a rather large basin.
And here is your heart.
Dick Cheney: It's the one I lived with for Jonathan Reiner: A normal heart would basically be about the size of two fists clamped together like this, maybe even a little bit smaller.
And you see this is about half a foot wide.
Sanjay Gupta: Old heart, new heart.
Dick Cheney: Old heart, new heart.
Its one of those situation where bigger isn't necessarily better.
That's because a bigger heart can't effectively pump blood through the body.
The X-ray on the left shows Cheney's enlarged heart - twice the normal size and pushing on his other organs.
On the right, his new heart.
And then there's this comparison again on the left, Cheney's diseased heart - weakened, with narrowed arteries.
And his new heart - with healthy vessels and no blockages.
Dick Cheney: Dramatically displays how sick I was.
Today Cheney says he's taking good care of his new heart.
He spends much of his time back in Wyoming with his family - and playing rodeo hand to granddaughter Gracie.
Dick Cheney: You wake up every morning with a smile on your face because you've got a new day you never expected to have.
And there's a sense of wonderment.
Nothing short of magical.
Sanjay Gupta: You know, magical, wonderment, you're words.
Those aren't words you typically hear, or expect to hear from you Dick Cheney: Like Darth Vader.
Well, those are the words I choose to describe it.
We very nearly lost one of the wonders of the world.
The humpback whale was efficiently slaughtered until there were only a few thousand left.
But in one of the great success stories in conservation the humpback is making a comeback.
It's a good thing too because what we've learned about them lately makes the humpback one of the most fascinating animals ever to grace the Earth.
There are many species of whales and one by one they're coming off the endangered species list.
Whale hunting is rare today but there is still a place on the high seas where there's a battle to eliminate the last vestiges of whaling.
There we found a man who has risked life and limb to end any threat to whales once and for all.
You're watching the ramming of a Japanese whaling ship by a combative conservationist group, lead by American Paul Watson.
He's trying to stop the transfer of a minke whale the Japanese just killed to the factory ship that will cut it up.
Commercial whaling is banned by international agreements.
But the Japanese and a few others are still launching harpoons.
These scenes were shot for the Animal Plant series "Whale Wars" -- and these scenes were shot by the whalers themselves who say this is evidence that Watson is nothing more than a pirate.
The Japanese obtained an international arrest warrant for him.
So, for the last year, this conservationist, or pirate, has lived on the world's oceans unable to set foot on land.
Scott Pelley: We are headed out to international waters where Watson lives on a ship beyond the reach of the law.
But before he would meet with us, we had to agree that we wouldn't say where we are, or even what ocean this is.
Suffice to say it involved several airplanes and many thousands of miles.
Towards the end of that journey, Watson sent this trimaran to pick us up.
This boat once set the speed record for circumnavigating the Earth.
He named the boat for an actress who's a supporter.
But to us it looked more Darth Vader than Brigitte Bardot.
Watson came to the Bardot from a floating hideout that we agreed not to show.
He is one of the founders of Greenpeace.
And now at the age of 62, he calls his new armada: Sea Shepherd.
Paul Watson: The simple fact is this, if the oceans die, we die.
Paul Watson: Sea Shepherd was set up to uphold those international laws and regulations protecting our oceans.
Scott Pelley: But why is that your job? Countries enforce laws.
Why are you doing this? Paul Watson: I just do not see the political will on the part of these governments to do anything.
Scott Pelley: But that makes you a vigilante.
You're deciding on your own that you're going to enforce these laws.
What gives you the right? Paul Watson: Because I want to survive.
And I want to make sure that my children survive.
And I'm not going to sit back and watch the oceans be destroyed because governments don't have the political or economic will to uphold these laws.
The whaling ban makes an exception for research.
And the Japanese proclaim that exception in tall letters on their ships.
They set their own quotas about 900 minkes, 50 fin whales and 50 humpbacks.
These are minkes.
And even though the Japanese reserve the right to kill humpbacks, they haven't, according to the International Whaling Commission.
Paul Watson: There is no scientific basis for what they're doing.
We have seen them take a whale onto the factory vessel.
There's no scientist there.
There's nobody measuring anything.
They simply cut them up, send them down below, and package them.
This is not science.
It's bogus.
The International Court of Justice in The Hague will be deciding whether Japan's whaling is really for research or should be stopped.
But while the whaling continues, Sea Shepherd fouls the Japanese plan with rope to catch their propellers.
The Japanese fire back with water, and ear-splitting sirens.
Sea Shepherd throws stink bombs.
The Japanese return concussion grenades.
Scott Pelley: You called Sea Shepherd, which you founded, the most aggressive, no-nonsense conservation organization in the world.
And you said, quote: "I don't believe in protests.
That is far too submissive.
" What do you mean? Paul Watson: Well protesting is sort of like, "Please, please, please, don't do that.
" But they'll do it anyway.
But they just ignore you.
So, protest is submissive.
We're not a protest organization.
We're an interventionist organization.
We intervene against illegal activities.
But this is what happened recently when Sea Shepherd tried to intervene.
The whaler kept coming and sheared the bow off Watson's $2 million boat which eventually sank.
No one was seriously hurt.
Watson claims he has cut the Japanese catch.
Because of these tactics, the same tactics that the Japanese say are illegal.
Scott Pelley: You're in sort of a prison, aren't you? Paul Watson: Well it's a pretty nice prison.
It's you know-- I don't mind being on the ocean.
It's a beautiful place and certainly the citizens out here tend to be more peaceful.
Scott Pelley: But when people call your tactics violent, how do you respond to that? I mean, you look at this footage, it looks violent.
It's hostile.
Paul Watson: The Japanese are committing violence against living whales.
We are not hurting anybody so we're not violent.
This battle is fought in the last place where humpback whales are considered "endangered" by the international agency that decides these things.
These "South Pacific" humpbacks feed here in the Antarctic summer then journey north 4,000 miles to mate.
This is where much of the research is done around a speck on the map called Rarotonga.
This volcanic island, part of the Cook Islands, is just 21 miles around with 10,000 residents and not a single traffic light.
Here we found the human who may know humpbacks best.
Nan Hauser: He's right behind the boat, hello beautiful.
He's putting on quite a lovely show for us and you just have to be careful and respect their space.
Scott Pelley: They take up a lot of space.
Nan Hauser is an American marine biologist who intended to come to Rarotonga for one month of research but that was 16 years ago.
Now her home and lab are on the side of the volcano and she spends her days eye to eye with her subjects.
Nan Hauser: As you watch them, as you see these massive animals and look at them in the eye and they're looking at you-- and they've never seen what a human looks like before-- and so they're curious about you.
And you're curious about them.
Humpbacks are acrobats.
Their fins are like wings up to 20 feet long.
They cooperate with each other to hunt for the krill and small fish they eat by the tons.
We've learned a lot about them in recent years and, some of it we know is because Nan Hauser has risked her life to discover it.
She's part of an international mission to harpoon humpbacks with small satellite transmitters.
That rubber boat feels tiny next to an animal Nan Hauser: It's very, very dangerous.
All they have to do is pick up their tail and give you a good whack and all your bones are broken and your organs are ruptured.
So it's very scary.
Very, very scary.
My heart is pounding.
When they surface to breathe, the transmitter, stuck in their blubber, sends a signal.
Now we know humpbacks can travel 10,000 miles a year, that's the world record for a mammal.
Eighty percent of their lives are spent submerged.
And this is where Nan Hauser has made some of her most beautiful discoveries.
Nan Hauser: Here we see a male standing on his head, upside down, singing a song.
They are motionless and the song bellows out.
The humpback song can be 20 minutes long.
And they repeat the same song again and again.
Males in one region will all sing the same song the same way.
But next year, they'll return with a new composition.
Scott Pelley: So, this is air somehow moving around inside their heads? That's making this sound even though they don't have vocal cords? Nan Hauser: Correct.
It's almost, I think, like taking a balloon full of air and going.
The sound carries for miles.
And Hauser believes, its all to mark their territory.
Nan Hauser: They take turns singing, perhaps to say, "My lungs are bigger.
I can hold my breath longer.
I can sing a more beautiful song.
I'm the dominant male.
I'm going to sing here so you move away and sing somewhere else.
" Scott Pelley: Can you do some of the sounds that you've heard? Nan Hauser: I think the most common whale sound is kind of a (makes sound).
But we get everything.
We've even had the laughing monkey, Ee, ee, ee, ee.
Creaky doors (makes sound).
Scott Pelley: What are they saying? Nan Hauser: We don't know.
Scott Pelley: So you speak whale.
But you don't understand it.
Nan Hauser: Absolutely.
But she does understand a calf's jaw clapping anger.
Hauser captured it when a mother went off to mate and left this calf behind.
Nan Hauser: He does a small clap.
Right here.
Scott Pelley: What does it mean? Nan Hauser: Now I know it means, "I'm upset and I'm gonna have a little bit of a temper tantrum.
" You can see him.
Hear him? Scott Pelley: He's saying, "Pay attention to me?" Nan Hauser: Exactly.
Humpbacks give birth to one calf a year.
So their comeback has been slow, but steady.
Before the whaling ban there were maybe 5,000 left in the world.
Now it's estimated there are 80,000.
The biggest threats to them these days are collisions with ships and the kind of miles long fishing line that wrapped up this whale.
Nan Hauser: They get wrapped up and then they get held underwater and they need to come up for air otherwise they suffer and they drown.
Hauser hopes that the satellite tags will mark migration routes so that man can steer clear.
History may show we stopped the global slaughter just in the nick of time.
Humpbacks are now found in every ocean.
Their numbers are back to about 30 percent of what they had been before whaling.
It's a sign that a fascinating and beautiful part of the planet is on the mend.