Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Travelers in Northeast Frozen in Winter Weather; Valerie Plame Speaks Before House Committee; New E-Mails Raise Questions About Karl Rove's Role in Firing of Federal Prosecutors

Aired March 16, 2007 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Travelers in the northeast frozen in their tracks. A brutal winter storm hammering the region just five days before spring. Hundreds of flights canceled this hour. CNN's Alina Cho is at New York's LaGuardia Airport. I'm wondering, I see people moving around. At least I'm not sleeping on cots as of yet. Anybody stranded there, Alina?
ALINA CHO, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There are some stranded passengers, Heidi. You know, what's interesting is there is snow on the runway to speak of at LaGuardia, but hundreds of flights have been canceled today throughout the New York area.

Of course that is going to affect travel across the country. Here's the breakdown. Delta Airlines has canceled 120 flights today. American Airlines, 100 and Northwest, 65. Over at Newark Airport, nearly 250 flights have been canceled today. A little more outbound than inbound. Over at JFK, let's talk about JetBlue. Who could forget that operational meltdown a month ago during that infamous Valentine's Day storm?

Today the airline has canceled 230 flights. Most of them in and out of New York's three major airports. What's interesting is the airline has just announced it will not reinstate any of those flights, even if the weather improves today. Now, earlier I spoke with two young women who were still hoping to make it to Dallas in time for St. Patrick's Day.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He goes; I'm going to put you on standby for an earlier flight. And I saw why not my 7:00 flight and he goes, because you're going to standby on earlier. And I said why? And he said because it's canceled. So you know, there was no indication whatsoever beforehand that the flight have been canceled. It showed on time.

CHO: Are you a little worried?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, hell, yeah, I'm worried. I want to go home.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We woke up this morning and looked out of the window, saw the snow coming down and was wondering if our flight would be canceled or not. So far so good. So I think we got lucky.

CHO: You got lucky. Well, you're beating the weather.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We're going to beat the weather. It's a good time to get out of New York City.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

CHO: Now, weather like this normally wouldn't affect travel to this extent in the New York area, but with JetBlue's problems last month, nobody wants to take any chances. All of the airlines, Heidi, are taking extra precautions today. I'm just looking out the door here, the snow has picked up. It could get worse later on today.

COLLINS: Yes, certainly, it could get worse. And I'll say when we talk about the weather not being bad or weather getting better and trying to reinstate these flights, it's so tough to get crews at that point where they need to be.

CHO: That's right. You know, what's interesting about today is that there are scattered cancellations with all of the airlines. There are several flights, we should mention that are getting out on time. So you see some of the passengers coming by me. They are leaving. They are getting to their destinations. One sunny spot, Heidi, the flight to Miami, the American Airlines flight, that flight left six minutes early today.

COLLINS: See, that's where we should be going. I'll meet you there, Alina.

CHO: Thank you.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: And quickly now let's check in with Chad Myers in the Severe Weather Center. Chad, how severe could conditions get there in the northeast? It looks a mess behind you, that's for sure.

(WEATHER REPORT)

COLLINS: No longer under cover. We could hear from outed CIA operative Valerie Plame very shortly. She's scheduled to appear before the House committee on oversight in government reform. A live shot there of all the press. We've been noticing the room sort of fill up pretty quickly as we go here. Again, waiting for her to come forward at any moment to speak.

Democrats hoping for their chance, of course, to dig into the leak of Plame's identity. Brianna Keilar is on Capitol Hill this morning. Brianna, we're not really going to hear any classified details. Nothing new probably but still, TV sets all over Washington are going to be watching this one.

BRIANNA KEILAR, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right. This is one of the first times or the first time in almost -- or more than rather three and a half years that we will have heard Valerie Plame Wilson speak about her side of this whole scandal, the CIA leak scandal. She is of course the glamorous and unwitting star in this whole drama, this Washington drama of the White House leaking the identity, her identity as a CIA operative.

Now, of course that drama we've seen play out. Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Scooter Libby being convicted on federal charges very recently. And aside from prepared comments that Valerie Plame Wilson made alongside her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson last year when they announced they were going to file a suit against Vice President Dick Cheney and other White House officials, she has largely been silent.

So this is very dramatic, our chance to hear her side of things. And she's going to talk about why it's important, obviously, to safeguard the identity of covert operatives. Also we expect to hear her talk about how this ruined her career at the CIA.

COLLINS: Any idea at this point, Brianna, we've been talking about how there's a possibility that it might not happen. But as we look at that live shot, we really do see people moving forward with this. So assuming that it does happen, will there be an opportunity for questions as well? Will she take questions from this panel?

KEILAR: From the panel or from the media?

COLLINS: From the panel.

KEILAR: We understand that she will take questions from the panel. It's going to be very anti-climatic if this doesn't go through, Heidi. But it's possible that it won't because really the House is in session today really in name only.

On a Friday like this when there's no legislative business, there's no votes, a lot of members of Congress head out of town. So say Republicans try to close this session so that the media isn't allowed all of these reporters and photographers are not allowed. It's possible Democrats won't have enough votes to counter it and they could choose to postpone this. But certainly a lot of people anxiously awaiting Valerie Plame Wilson's arrival and waiting to hear what she's going to say.

COLLINS: All right, Brianna Keilar's watching this one for us - Brianna, thanks.

HARRIS: Now the nation's top prosecutor fighting for his job. Each day Alberto Gonzales may be actually closer to losing it. The latest blow from President Bush's top political guru, new e-mails raise questions about Karl Rove's role in the firing of federal prosecutors. Democrats who claim politics were behind the firings are now smelling blood. CNN's Kathleen Koch is at the White House. Kathleen, share with us some of what you found in these e-mails.

KATHLEEN KOCH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Well, I think perhaps the most important and interesting e-mail seem certainly to indicate that top political advisor Karl Rove was involved earlier and perhaps indeed more deeply involved in this discussion over whether or not to fire not just the eight U.S. attorneys who were dismissed, but indeed all 93 U.S. attorneys.

Now initially, the White House said that that idea was originated from former White House counsel Harriet Miers. Now, in a gaggle that press secretary Tony Snow had just a minute ago where he gives a short briefing to reporters, he said right now he can't say for certain -- with any degree of certainty where exactly that idea originated.

He said the only thing that he can say with any certainty is that Karl Rove remembers Harriet Miers raising it. Now, going to this particular e-mail, it's from White House aide Colin Newman to another aide. It reads, quote, "Rove stopped by to ask you how we planned to proceed regarding U.S. attorneys. Allow all to stay, request resignations from all and accepting only some or selectively replace them."

Now, Democrats when they see that e-mail they say they're very angry. They say that indicates that Rove was involved in this from the start. But Snow this morning said that's not the picture that he sees. He says, the point here, this does not look like someone coming in with an urgent directive. It reads more like a question, what's going on? Not off with their heads.

Another point that we raise with Tony Snow is will the White House let Congress know today whether or not Rove, Harriet Miers, or any other White House officials will come up to Capitol Hill to testify. That's something that counsel Fred Fielding has been discussing with members of Congress.

And Snow would not give us an answer on that, would not give us any idea when a decision will be coming on that matter. As far as when Alberto Gonzales will be going to the Hill to talk with lawmakers and answer their questions, Snow wouldn't indicate that either. He said check with the Justice Department on his schedule, back to you.

HARRIS: At the White House, Kathleen Koch for us this morning. Kathleen, thank you.

KOCH: You bet.

COLLINS: Tears in Brunswick, Georgia, worst fears realized. The slain body of 6-year-old Christopher Barrios found alongside a road just three miles from where he disappeared on March 8th.

A convicted sex offender, his parents and a friend of theirs is in custody. Police say the four stymied investigators with conflicting stories about this young boy's fate. And today, authorities say they will all face murder charges. Friends describe Christopher Barrios as a kind, quiet boy. Police say they know the motive of the slaying. They're not talking about it just yet, though. An autopsy is planned.

HARRIS: More U.S. troops ordered to Iraq. Extra firepower in the air to help forces on the ground. That story coming up in the NEWSROOM.

COLLINS: Friendly fire and a British soldier killed. Today a ruling, the incident involving U.S. forces in Iraq was lawful. We'll tell you more about that coming up in the NEWSROOM.

HARRIS: Explaining 50 shots fired at an unarmed man on his wedding day. Surprise testimony from a last-minute witness, in the NEWSROOM.

COLLINS: In the line of fire line of fire, a wall of flames seen from miles away. A big problem for Amtrak. We'll track this one for you ahead here in the NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COLLINS: Democratic lawmakers pretty interested in hearing from CIA operative - or outed CIA operative, I should say, Valerie Plame, making their appearances today.

We're looking at a live picture here. This is the House committee on oversight and government reform. She's going to be coming before the microphones in this manner for the first time. We have seen a press conference with her before on this. Not a huge bit of news expected today.

But this is usually sort of the process in trying to uncover any information that there might not have been uncovered before. Don't expect that to happen. But of course, we'll be following that for you and bring you any developments should they arise.

On Capitol Hill, Democrats face a defeat and another fight over Iraq. In the Senate, Democrats failed to get the votes needed to approve a resolution setting a timetable for troops to leave Iraq. But in the House, a panel approved an emergency spending bill that calls for troops to be out of Iraq by September of 2008. The full House votes on that coming up next week.

More troops headed to Iraq and they're on the fast track. Quickly though, we'll tell you about that in a moment.

We want to bring you this. Valerie Plame now making her way over to the microphones. As you see, the press taking about a million pictures a second. We can hear the shutters flying. Taking her seat. Let's go ahead and just watch for a moment here and see what transpires. Of course, she will have opening statements. And let's go ahead and listen in.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D), CALIFORNIA: Meeting of the committee will come to order. Today the committee is holding a hearing to examine how the White House handles highly-classified information. In June and July 2003, one of the nation's most carefully guarded secrets, the identity of a covert CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, was repeatedly revealed by White House officials to members of the media.

This was an extraordinarily serious breach of our national security. President George W. Bush's father, the former President Bush, said and I quote, "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who expose the names of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors," end quote. Today we'll be asking three questions. One, how did such a serious violation of our national security occur? Two, did the White House take the appropriate investigative and disciplinary steps after the breach occurred? And three, what changes in White House procedures are necessary to prevent future violations of our national security from occurring?

For more than three years a special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been investigating the leak for its criminal implications. By definition, Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation had an extremely narrow criminal focus. It did not answer the broader policy questions raised by the release of Ms. Wilson's identity, nor did it seek to ascribe responsibility outside of the narrow confines of the criminal law.

As the chief investigative committee of the House of Representatives, our role is fundamentally different than Mr. Fitzgerald's. It's not our job to determine criminal culpability, but it is our job to understand what went wrong and to insist on accountability and to make recommendations for future -- to avoid future abuses.

And we begin that process today. This hearing is being conducted in open session. This is appropriate, but it is also challenging. Ms. Wilson was a covert employee of the CIA. We cannot discuss all of the details of her CIA employment in open session. I have met personally with General Hayden, the head of the CIA, to discuss what I can and cannot say about Ms. Wilson's service. And I want to thank him for his cooperation and help in guiding us along these lines.

My staff has also worked with the agency to ensure these remarks do not contain classified information. I have been advised by the CIA and that even now, after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope, and character of Ms. Wilson's service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests.

But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for today's hearing. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status with the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under executive order 12958.

At the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information. Ms. Wilson served in senior management positions at the CIA, in which she oversaw the work for other CIA employees and she attained the level of GS-14, step 6, under the federal pay scale.

Ms. Wilson worked on some of the most sensitive and highly- secretive matters handled by the CIA. Ms. Wilson served at various times overseas for the CIA. Without discussing the specifics of Ms. Wilson's classified work, it is accurate to say that she worked on the prevention of the development and use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States. In her various positions at the CIA, Ms. Wilson has faced significant risks to her personal safety and her life. She took on serious risks on behalf of our country. Ms. Wilson's work in many situations had consequence for the security of her colleagues and maintaining her cover was critical to protecting the safety of both colleagues and others.

The disclosure of Ms. Wilson's employment with the CIA had several serious effects. First, it terminated her covert job opportunities with the CIA. Second, it placed her professional contacts at greater risk. And third, it undermined the trust and confidence with which future CIA employees and sources hold the United States.

This disclosure of Ms. Wilson's classified employment status with the CIA was so detrimental that the CIA filed a crimes report with the Department of Justice. As I mentioned, Ms. Wilson's work was so sensitive that even now she is still prohibited from discussing many details of her work in public because of the continuing risks the CIA officials and assets in the field and to the CIA's ongoing work.

Some have suggested that Ms. Wilson did not have a sensitive position with the CIA or a position of unusual risk. As a CIA employee, Ms. Wilson has taken a lifelong oath to protect classified information, even after her CIA employment has ended. As a result, she cannot respond to most of the statements made about her.

I want to make clear, however that any characterization that minimizes the personal risk of Ms. Wilson that she accepted in her assignments is flatly wrong. There should be no confusion on this point. Ms. Wilson has provided great service to our nation and has fulfilled her obligation to protect classified information admirably and we are confident she will uphold it again today.

That concludes the characterizations the CIA is permitting us to make today. But to these comments I want to add a personal note. For many in politics, praising the troops and those who defend our freedom is second nature. Sometimes it's done in sincerity and sometimes it's done with cynicism.

But almost always we don't really know who the people are, we don't know who those people are that are out there, they are abstract heroes and serving in the Armed Services or weather they're serving in the CIA. Two weeks ago, this committee met some real heroes face to face when we went to visit Walter Reed. Every member was appalled at what we learned. Our treatment of the troops didn't match our rhetoric.

Thankfully Mrs. Wilson hasn't suffered physical harm and faces much more favorable circumstances now that -- than some of the troops, some of the soldiers that we met last week. But she, too, has been one of those people fighting to protect our freedom and she, like thousands of others, who are serving our country bravely and anonymously.

She didn't ask that her identity be revealed, but it was, repeatedly. And that was an inexcusable breach of the responsibilities our country owes to her. Once again, our actions did not match our rhetoric. I want to thank Mrs. Wilson for the tremendous service she gave to our country and recognize the remarkable personal sacrifices she and countless others have made to protect our national security.

You and your colleagues perform truly heroic work and what happened to you not only should never have happened, but we should all work to make sure it never happens again. Thank you very much.

I want to yield to Mr. Davis, the ranking member of our committee. In doing so, I want to thank him for his cooperation in this hearing. This has been a complicated hearing. It's much more complicated than most of our hearings. We had to decide what we could, what we couldn't say, what we could and couldn't ask, whether it would be an open session or closed session, et cetera. I want to thank Mr. Davis for the tremendous cooperation he's given us to recognize at this point.

REP. TOM DAVIS (R), VIRGINIA: Thank you, Chairman Waxman. I want to fist start by congratulating you in the passage of important reform legislation this week. We adopted bipartisan bills crafted in this committee to strengthen the Freedom of Information Act, disclose donors to presidential libraries, expand access to presidential records and fortify whistle-blower protections.

Given those accomplishments, it's ironic that we in Sunshine Week of the annual observance of open government with a more partisan hearing on how to best keep secrets. Let me state at the outset that the outing of Mrs. Wilson's identity was wrong. And we have every right to look at this and investigate it.

But I have to confess I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish today given all the limitations that the chairman has just described has been put on us by the CIA. I ostensibly call to examine White House procedures for handling and protecting classified information. The hearing's lead witness never worked at the White House. If she knows about the security practices there she can't say much about them in a public forum. We do know that she worked at the CIA. That now well-known fact raises some very different questions about how critical but difficult it is to protect the identity of individuals with covert status.

But again, those are questions we probably can't say much about in a public forum without violating the very security safeguards the majority claims to be worried about at the White House. Under these circumstances perhaps, a hypothetical case is the best way to describe the futility of trying to enforce the intelligence protection act in this decidedly nonjudicial venue.

Let's say for example a member of a committee staff is told to identify a CIA witness for a hearing on security practices. He or she calls the agency and asks to speak with official A. Official A is not in, so the call is routed to official B, who identifies him or herself by name and title and answers the staffer's question. Thinking official B would be a fine witness; the staff member then calls the Congressional Research service or a friend at another committee to find out more about official B. But official B happens to be a covert agent. In passing the name, title and CIA affiliation around, has the staff member violated the law? Probably not but you would have to be looking through a pretty thick political prism to see unintentional, unauthorized disclosure in that context. And that happened.

In the case of Mrs. Wilson, the majority stresses the fact that disclosure of her status triggered a crimes report by the CIA and the Justice Department. Allegations against White House officials and reporters were thoroughly vetted. But after spending six months and millions of dollars, the special counsel charged no one with a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The lack of prosecution under the act shows those disclosures probably occurred in a similarly non-intentional context, lacking the requisite knowledge of covert status or the intention to disclose that status without authorization.

No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. Just as no one can be prosecuted for unauthorized information that no one ever said was protected. So this looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem. If the agency doesn't take sufficient precautions to protect the identity of those who engage in covert work, no one else can do it for them.

The same law meant to protect secret identities also requires an annual report to Congress on the steps taken to protect the highly- sensitive information. But we're told few if any such reports exist from the CIA. Who knows what information needs to be protected and how they are told?

Is there a list officials can check against? Do CIA briefers know when material given to executive branch officials reference as a covert agent or are they cautioned not to repeat the name? How is it made known and to whom when the five-year protection period for a formerly covert agent has elapsed? Those are the questions that need to be asked about the safeguards and classified information but we won't hear from the CIA today because this is an open forum. Given all that, I suspect we're going to probably waste some time talking about things we can't talk about and that's unfortunate. Unfortunate an individual possibly still in a covert status was publicly identified. Unfortunate executive branch officials got anywhere near this media maelstrom rather than focus on more serious problems. That's a disappointment to me. And unfortunate this has become so politicized. On this side we're not here to defend or attack anyone. In an open session we hope to shed some sunshine on the workings of government. I have to say again I'm not sure that's going to happen today but I thank our witnesses for trying. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. Our first witness is Mrs. Valerie Plame Wilson she's a former covert CIA employee whose service to this country included work involving the prevention of the development, use of weapons of mass destruction against our nation. Her employment status was publicly disclosed in July 2003, effectively terminating her covert job opportunities within the CIA. Ms. Wilson, it's the practice of this committee that all witnesses are administered an oath and I'd like to ask you to stand and raise your right hand.

Do you promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?

VALERIE PLAME WILSON, FORMER CIA OPERATIVE: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you.

The record will reflect the fact that the witness answered in the affirmative. Before we begin the questioning period I want to underscore to members of the committee that while it is important that Ms. Wilson have the opportunity to provide testimony that will help us understand the significance of the disclosure of her CIA employment status, we should not be seeking classified information from Ms. Wilson in this open forum and we need to respect that she may in some cases have to decline to respond on the grounds of doing so would risk disclosure of sensitive information. Ms. Wilson, we're pleased to have you here. Thank you very much for coming to our committee today and I want to recognize you for an opening statement. There's a button on the base of the mike, be sure to press it in and pull it closely enough to you so you can be heard. Pull it a little closer.

PLAME: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Valerie Plame Wilson and I am honored to have been invited to testify under oath before the committee on oversight and government reform on the critical issue of safeguarding classified information. I'm grateful for this opportunity to set the record straight. I've served the United States loyally and to the best of my ability as a covert operations officer for the Central Intelligence Agency. I worked on behalf of the national security of our country, on behalf of the people of the United States until my name and true affiliation were exposed in the national media on July 14, 2003, after a leak by administration officials. Today I can tell this committee even more. In the run-up to the war with Iraq I worked in the counter proliferation division of the CIA. Still as a covert officer whose affiliation with the CIA was classified. I raced to discover solid intelligence for senior policymakers on Iraq's presumed weapons of mass destruction programs.

While I helped to manage and run secret worldwide operations against this WMD target from CIA headquarters in Washington, I also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence. I loved my career because I love my country. I was proud of the serious responsibilities entrusted to me as a CIA covert operations officer and I was dedicated to this work. It was not common knowledge on the Georgetown cocktail circuit that everyone knew where I worked. But all of my efforts on behalf of the national security of the United States, all of my training, all of the value of my years of service were abruptly ended when my name and identity were exposed irresponsibly.

In the course of the trial Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, Scooter Libby, I was shocked by the evidence that emerged. My name and identity were carelessly and recklessly abused by senior government officials in both the White House and the State Department. All of them understood that I worked for the CIA and having signed oaths to protect national security secrets they should have been diligent in protecting me and every CIA officer. The CIA goes to great lengths to protect all of its employees, providing at significant taxpayers' expense, painstakingly devised and creative covers for its most sensitive staffers. The harm that is done when a CIA cover is blown is grave but I can't provide details beyond that in this public hearing, but the concept is obvious.

Not only have breaches of national security endangered CIA officers, it has jeopardized and even destroyed entire networks of foreign agents who, in turn, risk their own lives and those of their families to provide the United States with needed intelligence. Lives are literally at stake. Every single one of my former CIA colleagues, from my fellow covert officers to analysts to technical operations officers to even the secretaries understand the vulnerabilities of our officers and recognize that the travesty of what happened to me could happen to them. We in the CIA always know that we might be exposed and threatened by foreign enemies. It was a terrible irony that administration officials were the ones who destroyed my cover.

Furthermore, testimony in the criminal trial of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff who has now been convicted of serious crimes indicates that my exposure arose from purely political motives. Within the CIA it is essential that all intelligence be evaluated on the basis of its merits and actual credibility. National security depends upon it. The trade craft of intelligence is not a product of speculation. I feel passionately as an intelligence professional about the creeping insidious politicizing of our intelligence process.

All intelligence professionals are dedicated to the idea that they would rather be fired on the spot than distort the facts to fit a political view, any political view or any ideology. As our intelligence agency goes through reorganizations and experience at painful aspects of change and our country faces profound challenges injecting partisanship or ideology into the equation makes effective and accurate intelligence that much more difficult to develop. Politics and ideology must be stripped completely from our intelligent services or the consequences will be even more severe than they have been and our country placed in even greater danger.

It is imperative for any president to be able to make decisions based on intelligence that is unbiased. The Libby trial and the events leading to the Iraq war highlight the urgent need to restore the highest professional standards of intelligence collection and analysis and the protection of our officers and operations. The congress has a constitutional duty to defend our national security and that includes safeguarding our intelligence. That is why I am grateful for this opportunity to appear before this committee today and to assist in its important work. Thank you and I welcome any questions.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much, Ms. Wilson. We'll now proceed with 10 minutes on each side managed by the chair and the ranking member of the committee. For our first round I want to yield five minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Yarmuth, to begin the questioning.

REP. JOHN YARMUTH, (D) KENTUCKY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here today Ms. Wilson. Our country owes you a great debt of gratitude for your service and I think you're continuing that service today by appearing. I'd like to start by asking you about July 14th, 2003, the day that Robert Novak wrote the column in the "Chicago Sun Times" identifying you as an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction, quote. But before I get to that I want to ask you about the day before, July 13th. My understanding is that on that date you were covert. Is that correct, on July 13th?

PLAME: I was a covert officer, correct.

YARMUTH: Without destroying or disclosing classified information, what does covert mean?

PLAME: I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the CIA is taking affirmative steps to ensure that there is no links between the operations officer and the Central Intelligence Agency. I mean, that's simple.

YARMUTH: As you said, and my understanding is that your work was classified for purposes of many of the regulations and the laws that we're talking about. Your work was classified on that day, July 13th.

PLAME: That's correct.

YARMUTH: Did the July 14th column destroy your covert position and your classified status?

PLAME: Yes, it did. I could no longer perform the work for which I had been highly trained. I could no longer travel overseas or do the work for which my career, which I loved. It was done.

YARMUTH: And this may be a simplistic question, but the information that was disclosed in Robert Novak's column, is it correct to say that that is information that you would not have disclosed yourself?

PLAME: That is correct.

YARMUTH: How did you react when you learned that your identity had been disclosed?

PLAME: I found out very early in the morning when my husband came in and dropped the newspaper on the bed and said he did it. And I quickly turned and read the article. And I felt like I had been hit in the gut. It was over in an instant. And I immediately thought of my family's safety, the agents, networks that I had worked with, and everything goes through your mind in an instant.

YARMUTH: What effect did the leak have on you professionally?

PLAME: Professionally? Well, I could no longer do the work, which I had been trained to do. There was -- after that, there is no way that you can serve overseas in a covert capacity. And so that career path was terminated.

YARMUTH: Did the leak make you feel that your entire career had been thrown out the window, essentially, had been wasted at all?

PLAME: Not wasted but certainly terminated prematurely.

YARMUTH: You've talked a little bit about your concern about the effect of the leak on your professional contacts. Did you have any contact with those people who were -- expressed their concern about the affect on their professional career?

PLAME: No, I did not but I do know the agency did a damage assessment. They did not share it with me. But I know that it certainly puts the people and the contacts I had all in jeopardy, even if they were completely innocent in nature.

YARMUTH: And what effect do you think it had at the broadest level, I'm talking about for future CIA employees and future sources?

PLAME: I think it was -- it had a very negative effect. If our government cannot even protect my identity, future foreign agents who might consider working with the Central Intelligence Agency and providing needed intelligence would think twice. Well, they can't even protect one of their own, how are they going to protect me? As well as, the agency is working very hard to attract highly-talented young people into its ranks because we do have profound challenges facing our country today. And I can't think that that helped those efforts.

YARMUTH: I can't see the clock, Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether my time is expired or not.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You have nine seconds.

YARMUTH: Nine seconds. Well, I'll yield back the balance of my seconds to you, chairman, thank you. Thank you Mrs. Wilson.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you Mr. Yarmuth. The chair would like to now yield time to Mr. Oates, the gentleman from New Hampshire.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Wilson, thank you for coming today. What happened to you is deadly serious. You were the victim of a national security breach. If this was a law enforcement context, something I'm familiar with, it would be equivalent to disclosing the identity of an undercover police officer, who put his life on the line and the lives of all those who help that officer. Our job on this committee is to find out how the breach happened. Now, I'd like to show you a chart that we prepared on the committee. You will see it up on the screens and we're putting it up here on paper. That chart is a graphic depiction of all the ways that your classified CIA employment was disclosed to White House officials and then to the press. Every colored block on that chart is an individual. And every arrow shows a disclosure of classified information. That classified information was your CIA employment status. And the arrows are based on the testimony in Mr. Libby's criminal case and press reports. This chart shows over 20 different disclosures about your employment. Let me ask you. Looking at this chart, are you surprised that so many people had access to the classified information about your CIA employment?

PLAME: Yes, I am, congressman. I'm also surprised at how --

COLLINS: We are listening in now to the CIA leak hearing. You are watching Valerie Plame, who is now testifying before the house committee on oversight and government reform. This is now the question and answer session. We have heard some very interesting things here. We are going to continue to follow this and monitor it and bring you back more of that. Obviously at stake here are ways that the covert status or the identity of CIA agents could possibly be better protected. Lots of questions and answers to come out of this, we will continue to monitor it. We're going to take a quick break, we'll be back in just a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

COLLINS: Want to remind you we are continuing to watch the hearings on Valerie Plame and the CIA leak case. Live shot now of her at the microphones with the house committee on oversight and government reform answering questions right now from Tom Davis, Republican and he's just asking about whether or not the White House knew at the time that she was outed, whether or not she was a covert agent. That is the questioning going on right now. We are going to take a quick break, continue to monitor this and bring you anything more should it happen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(WEATHER REPORT)

COLLINS: Want to go ahead and remind you of something that we are monitoring right now. You can look at this live shot here where we are watching Valerie Plame respond at least right now to ranking member Tom Davis and some of the questions that he has. She has also already responded to several other members of the house committee on oversight and government reform referring to the CIA leak case. Let's go ahead and listen in to some of her response now.

PLAME: And all of that came to abrupt end, obviously.

REP. TOM DAVIS: Do you know if any of the CIA colleagues like Robert Graneur who testified at the Libby trial that he told administration officials that you were involved in sending your husband to Niger. Do you know if he ever told any of these officials that you were undercover?

PLAME: I have no idea, other than what he testified.

DAVIS: Ok, when you introduced yourself and your husband to the group of IC analysts at a February 19th, 2002 meeting at CIA headquarters did you tell anybody present then you were undercover?

PLAME: No, I did not. I was in CIA headquarters. I introduced them and left the meeting, congressman.

DAVIS: Would they have known that -- would they have had any reason to know you were undercover?

PLAME: I believe that they would have assumed as such.

DAVIS: We're limited in what we can ask, so we're trying to stay within the confines that the CIA has --

PLAME: I understand.

DAVIS: Let me just ask -- try to put some -- some of the press speculation to rest and give you an opportunity to answer it. In January 2004 "Vanity Fair" published an article, they're not always known for great accuracy, touching on your role in the Niger uranium affair. It said, this was what they said. "In early May Wilson and Plame attended a conference sponsored by the senate democratic policy committee at which Wilson spoke about Iraq. One of the other panelists was "New York Times" journalist Nicholas Christoff over breakfast the next morning. With Christoff and his wife Wilson told about his trip to Niger and said Christoff could write about it but not name him. Is that account accurate?

PLAME: I think it is. I had nothing -- I was not speaking to Mr. Christoff and I think my husband did say that he had -- undertaken this trip but not to be named as a source.

DAVIS: Ok. Just to be clear, when -- the article says that -- says your husband met for breakfast with Christoff and his wife. Just to be clear, were you at the breakfast?

PLAME: Briefly, yes, congressman.

DAVIS: Ok. On June 13th, Christoff wrote a column about the Niger uranium matter. He wrote that he was piecing the story together from two people directly involved and three others who were briefed on it. Do you know if you were one of those people that he's referring to?

PLAME: I can't manage that I would be. I did not speak to him about it.

DAVIS: Ok. What about your husband? Would he have been one of the sources probably?

PLAME: I think he was speaking to Mr. Christoff at that point.

DAVIS: Was any of that information classified, to your knowledge?

PLAME: Not that I'm aware of.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you very much. Mr. Cummings, for five minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Thank you, very much. Ms. Wilson first of all thank you for your service. Ms. Wilson, even today your work for the CIA is so highly classified that we are not permitted to discuss the details. But we can clarify one crucial point, whether you worked undercover for the CIA. You said that your position was covert but I've heard others say that you were not covert. In fact, one of the witnesses who will testify a little bit later Victoria Tensing is making that same argument. In an op-ed that appeared in the "Washington Post" on February 18th, she says that quite bluntly. She says, quote, "Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters --

COLLINS: Once again, we are watching the CIA leak hearings that are going on right now, with the house committee on oversight and government reform. Valerie Plame has come to the microphones, has been invited there today to discuss what she knew and what she understood may have happened in the outing of her name back on July 14th. It's been very interesting to watch, lots and lots of discussion today about what it meant to be a covert agent versus a classified agent or otherwise. Those questions came out in the very beginning of all this, still trying to get to the bottom of that today. We're going to continue to watch this for you and bring you more exchanges as they happen. We're going to take a quick break for now, we'll be back right here in the CNN NEWSROOM.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.voxant.com