Looks like Virginia Sen. Jim Webb could now face a political showdown over his GI bill with a formidable adversary: Arizona Sen. John McCain.

McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, introduced competing legislation Tuesday that appeared aimed at defeating Webb's measure.

McCain's bill offers only modest increases to education benefits allowed under current law. Webb's bill, which had been gaining bipartisan support for months, offers the promise of full college tuition for many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense Department officials have expressed concern about Webb's bill, which they say could entice troops to leave the military sooner than anticipated. Webb said there's no evidence his bill would harm military retention.

It's not clear whether either bill will advance to the Senate floor. But if either one does, the battle could be lively, pitting two distinguished, battle-hardened military men against each other.

Webb, a former Navy secretary, is a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. McCain, of course, is a former prisoner-of-war who spent years in a Vietnamese prison. While McCain is a seasoned Republican lawmaker, Webb is a freshman Democrat.

The battle lines have now been drawn.

Webb, however, has a powerful ally in Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who recently agreed to co-sponsor the GI bill. Warner was also an early backer of McCain's presidential campaign.

McCain's bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C

Washington, DC-- The following is a statement from Senators Jim Webb (D-VA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and John Warner (R-VA):

"Senators McCain, Graham and Burr today introduced legislation apparently designed to be an alternative to S. 22, the comprehensive GI Bill package introduced nearly 16 months ago and recently modified to reflect the collective view of a wide range of experts. S.22 now enjoys strong bipartisan support with 57 cosponsors in the Senate--including 44 Democrats, 11 Republicans and 2 Independents--a majority of the House, and most of our nation's leading veterans' organizations. In fact, it is important to note that the major pieces of this legislation were specifically endorsed in the recent Independent Budget submitted by a consortium of the top veterans' organizations.

"The proponents of this newly-introduced legislation maintain that S.22 is too generous to today's veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, is too difficult to administer, and would unduly harm the retention of our active duty military people. Each of these assertions is wrong.

"S. 22 is hardly too generous, unless these senators are prepared to say that the World War II GI Bill was too generous. To the contrary, during 15 months of daily cooperation with all of our major veterans groups and many members of Congress, we have refined this legislation in many important ways. It is our best collective, bipartisan effort to mirror the type of benefits given to those who served in World War II.

"Nor would S. 22 be too difficult to administer. We have worked closely with the Department of Veterans Affairs and with committee staff on the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, and have addressed every major concern. For these reasons, Chairman Akaka of the Veterans Affairs Committee and Chairman Levin of the Armed Services Committee have cosponsored this bill.

"Nor would S. 22 unduly harm active duty retention. Recent statistics from the Army and Marine Corps show that 70 to 75 percent of soldiers and Marines who enlist return to civilian life at, or before, the end of their first enlistment. The military is already doing a very good job of managing its career force. It is not doing a very good job of assisting this large group of people as they attempt to readjust to civilian life, and this is the primary focus of S.22. With respect to active duty retention, a good GI Bill will increase the pool of people interested in serving and lower first-term attrition. Nor have we seen any credible evidence whatsoever that this legislation would affect retention."

Representatives for Senator Jim Webb will be holding a "Webb Site" in Harrisonburg Tuesday. The session will take place at the Massanutten Regional Library on South Main Street from Noon to 2 p.m.

The "Webb Sites" program offers face-to-face contact with staff representative and aims to provide access to constituents traveling long distances.

These sessions are designed to help with difficulties with Social Security and Medicare benefits, veterans' benefits, legal immigration, federal student loans, military service and other federally-related matters.

Webb says, "I am pleased that this program has enables my staff to get out into Virginia's communities and help constituents."

Webb created the program last year to provide satellite office-hour locations for Virginians to speak with representatives of Webb's staff om their local communities. There have been more than 70 of these sessions held in 30 communities across the state.

DELIVERED AT VIRGINIA MILITARY INSTITUTE IN LEXINGTON, VA

It is a real pleasure to share the rostrum today with some people who have given great leadership to our country in so many different ways. General Myers, as some of you may know, was one of the leading figures in bringing the Army back from a period of great turmoil following the Vietnam War. General Reese is a member of the West Point class of '66, which is a very famous class due to the special sacrifices it made during the Vietnam War. Approximately 10 percent of the class of '66 was killed during the war, the highest percentage of any of the other classes. To all of you on the rostrum, we appreciate your hospitality today.

It is a very busy time right now in the United States Congress. I am most appreciative of the Virginia National Guard for having arranged a helicopter so that I could be with you today while Congress is in session. I am going to have to return immediately after this event.
I also would like to take a moment today to acknowledge the anniversary of the tragedy last year at Virginia Tech. All of us who are government officials in Virginia have asked that there be a moment of silence at some point during the day to remember that day. There are a lot of heavy hearts here in Virginia.

I very much appreciate being invited to come down to Lexington to speak to you today. I would first like to convey my respect and appreciation for the choices that you are making in your young lives in order to serve our country. I also have a very strong affinity for this part of Virginia. One side of my father's family was among the original settlers here in Rockbridge County. There's a cemetery south of here in Natural Bridge where several of my ancestors are buried, so I always have very strong emotion when I come back here. I am also reminded of the service that my family has been honored to give our country, beginning in the American Revolution and leading up to today.

I grew up in the military. I am proud to have served our country as an infantry officer in the Marine Corps. My son left Penn State, enlisted in the Marine Corps, and served as a Marine rifleman in Ramadi, Iraq, during some of the worst fighting there. He is still on active duty. I've been around the military every way you can be around it: growing up in it, knowing what it's like to have a father deployed for long periods of time; knowing what it's like to be deployed; knowing what it's like to have a family member deployed; covering the military as a journalist; and serving as a civilian official in the Department of Defense.

I was in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines were attempting to help sort out a situation there which, in October of that year, resulted in more than 240 Marines dying in a single day. It is an incident that those of us who were in or around the military at that time will never forget. I was able to serve as a journalist in Afghanistan in '04, where I was in nine different places with the Marine Corps and the Army, in the field with them, observing and reporting on the combat operations. And I spent five years in the Pentagon: one as a Marine and four as a defense executive.

There is no profession in this country that I have greater respect for, a greater admiration for, and a greater concern for in terms of making sure that those who have served still live up to our responsibilities to make sure that those who step forward and serve are properly taken care of. It falls upon people like myself to make sure that those who now serve receive the well-deserved honor and respect that goes along with military service.

It's hard for me to comprehend this, but on June the 5th it will be 40 years since I stood up and raised my right hand and took the oath of office as a Marine lieutenant. And when we're looking at that period and comparing it to this country today, there are some parallels. The country in 1968 was going through enormous chaos. The Tet Offensive had occurred from the end of January through February, producing the highest casualty rate in the Vietnam War and turning a great deal of public opinion against the war. Martin Luther King had been assassinated in April. The night before I graduated, Robert Kennedy was shot. In the fall of that year, the Democratic National Convention was in total chaos with anti-war demonstrators and police battling it out in the streets of Chicago. We had frequent protests against the war, led by people in my same age group, which only increased after 1968.

And at the same time, as most of you in this room will appreciate, those of us who were called upon to serve our country were facing a different set of issues and different responsibilities. We had taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We knew where we were going. And so we set about our tasks. I went to Vietnam in 1969, which was the second worst year in the war for American casualties. It was also a time in this country when in political terms, more people started to question the war. Some of you have seen the films or heard the terminology--this was the time of Hamburger Hill. And I came away from that experience with some pretty strong feelings.

First, about the character of this unique profession and how important it is to keep it out of politics. There was a Marine two-star general named Samuel D. Griffith who was awarded a a Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism in WWII and later became quite an intellectual, personally translating Mao Tse Tung's book on guerrilla warfare from the Chinese. In the early 1960s General Griffith made an observation that has always stuck in my mind. He wrote, "In the United States, we go to considerable length to keep soldiers out of politics and even more to keep politics out of soldiers."

This distinction is something for all of you to think about. No matter what happens in the endeavors in Iraq, no matter what happens with the tone and debate inside this country, we must always strive to keep what our military people do away from the political commentary. It is wrong to use the service of our military people for political ends, because each military member has his or her own political views. I would urge you to think about that when you go to your units as officers. Combat was the most apolitical environment I have ever been in, and it is important in a country such as ours that we keep it that way. People serve because they love their country, because they have military traditions, because they want to soldier. When you're out in that environment, people pretty much check their politics at the door--and well they should. I make this same point again and again to my colleagues in the Senate. Don't take what our military people have been doing and politicize it in one way or the other.

I want to talk to you for a few minutes today about leadership. In the officer corps, leadership is your overarching function, your reason for existence. Whatever else you're doing, whatever skill you're being taught, whatever staff assignment you have been sent on, your number one responsibility is to emanate the qualities of leadership.

Above all, leadership requires character. A lot of times we teach character in the negative. For instance, when I was at the Naval Academy, the saying was: Midshipmen do not lie, cheat, or steal or tolerate among them those who do. Of course we don't tolerate people who lie, cheat, or steal. But integrity involves a great deal more than that. Integrity requires a willingness to accept responsibility, to accept accountability when things go bad. The three most magical words in the military when things start going bad are: "I accept responsibility."

Character means saying the same thing no matter who's in the room. Doing that also makes life a lot simpler, by the way. Character involves courage. We all read the stories about physical courage, and we see our people rightly rewarded for physical courage on the battlefield. There is also such a thing as moral courage. Moral courage can be a tough thing. When you know something is right, when you believe strongly that something is right, and when you see it is not being viewed that way by people who may be able to write your fitness report or who may be able to take something out on you in a different way, moral courage requires standing up for what you believe in, despite the cost.

And there's another kind of courage. I've come to call it daily courage. I just can't think of a better way to phrase it. You're going to see that in the men and women that you lead who are sent into harm's way. Daily courage is getting up every morning and having to do what your duty requires you to do, no matter what the obstacles are, no matter what you feel about it, because you've taken an oath to do so.

I've spent a lot of time in my life with people that I served with in combat, many of whom were seriously wounded. I had a rifle platoon in Vietnam that averaged about 40 people on any given day. In one eight-week period we took 56 casualties. In that platoon, I had a number of seriously wounded Marines, amputees, a double amputee, a triple amputee, spinal cord injured people, and others. I have the privilege on the one hand of keeping up with them, and on the other, they have inspired me with their daily courage.

What is daily courage? Sergeant Dale Wilson, from Troutman, North Carolina, who became a triple amputee in Vietnam, received a Silver Star two months before he was so severely wounded. A terrific Marine. When Sergeant Dale Wilson gets out of bed, every morning for the past 39 years he's had to take 15 minutes to put on his prostheses in order to go face the world, and he still has what it takes to get a college degree and have a wife, to raise a family and to lead a productive, professional life--that's daily courage.

Leadership also involves what you might call authenticity. And that involves what could be called your leadership style; how you articulate what your message is to your people. And that style has to be real.

Years ago, after I returned from Vietnam, I was a platoon commander at the Marine Corps Officer Candidate School. One young Marine who was in my platoon called me up five or six years later, and we went out for a beer. I said, "How's it going?" He said, "Well, the first year in the Marine Corps, I was miserable because I kept trying to be Jim Webb. Then I realized I'm not you and that I have to be myself." He said, "It's been pretty simple after that."

And if you look at the greats, some of the people that we're thinking about on a day like today, you can realize how different they really were, even though they all were effective. Marshall, Patton, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Omar Bradley - these were all incredible leaders. They lived in the same time period, sometimes serving under one another, sometimes competing with each other. But imagine what their careers would have been like if Patton had tried to act like George Catlett Marshall, in terms of his temperament or leadership style, or if Omar Bradley had tried to be like Patton. You have to communicate who you are in a sincere way that's going to make you comfortable and that's going to make the people you lead comfortable with you.

A key piece of leadership that I want to spend a little bit of time talking about today is loyalty. We learn about loyalty in your textbooks, and we know there's such a thing as loyalty up and loyalty down. I know when I was coming through the system in the Marine Corps, we always emphasized loyalty down. Loyalty down can be a difficult concept, as opposed to loyalty up.

"Loyalty up" means, among other things, that you must never lie to your chain of command. If your troops see you lie to your chain of command, they're going to lie to you. And you must never bad mouth your chain of command as a way of getting around your own accountability to your troops, because it creates the same environment.

Loyalty down is a little more complicated. During the time that I was in the Marine Corps, Chesty Puller was one of our great role models. He actually spent a little time here at VMI, before he headed off for World War I. Chesty Puller had coined a phrase that still sticks in the Marine Corps. He said, "When it comes to taking care of your troops, first you feed the privates, then you feed the corporals, then you feed the sergeants. Then, if there's anything left, the officers eat."

It's a very small thing when you think about it. But it is one of the most important concepts you will ever remember. Napoleon said it in a different way. He said, "The general's reward is not a bigger tent, it is command." If you put yourself up in front of your troops in a way that demonstrates a lack of humility, or in a way that indicates to them that you think your rank creates special preferences when it comes to the basic needs, you're failing as a leader.

Take care of your troops. The loyalty to the people that you lead carries over for the rest of your life. This is one of the reasons that I've offered two amendments related to the well-being of our military since I joined the United States Senate.

The first amendment I introduced was the "Dwell Time" amendment. In traditional operational environments, the goal has always been that for however long you are deployed, you are supposed to have twice as much time back at your home base. If you are deployed for six months, traditionally that would mean a year back. If you're deployed for a year, you need two years back. If you're deployed nine months, you need 18 months back.

And that is not down time. Dwell time gives units time to refurbish their equipment and to bring in new people. It also gives people time to do things with their family. It then gives service members the opportunity to gear up so that they can go back and do what they need to do again. As the situation that we are in now moves forward in Iraq and Afghanistan, we've reached a point where instead of a 2:1 ratio, we are down below 1:1. A typical ground unit would find it very difficult these days to do anything but to come back and have a very brief period off and then begin the cycle of preparing to go again -- a very tough preparation cycle.

It is my very strong belief that we have other ways to use our manpower so that we aren't burning out our troops. We should not be falling below 1:1. We should not be allowing our troops to be deployed on a repetitive basis. And we should not be allowing those decisions that drive them below 1:1. There was a study in the New York Times, about two weeks ago, that looked at multiple tours in the United States Army and those NCOs, the career people, who have been deployed three times or more. It found that 27 percent of them have the symptoms of post-traumatic stress, acute stress, and other long-term emotional challenges. .

The point is our military people have always done what the country asks of them in every war. It is responsibility of the top leadership to act as their stewards to make sure that they are being used properly. That is loyalty down. So I introduced an amendment to mandate a minimum 1:1 dwell time for our military, and I'm going to reintroduce that amendment. I am asking my fellow senators to put their politics aside and join me in establishing that under no conditions, other than absolute emergencies, should we be pushing our people that hard.

The second example of loyalty down that has carried with me all the way through my life is the GI Bill that I introduced my first day in office. In the late 1970s I became the first Vietnam veteran to serve as a full committee counsel in the Congress, and since that time I have worked on these GI Bill programs. Today, our military men and women use the Montgomery GI Bill, designed as peace-time program, put into place in the 1980s to help recruitment. Since 9/11, with the way that our military has been used, our people need more. They need more in order to help transition back in civilian life. We keep hearing people say, "This is the next greatest generation." So, my logic is: "Good, let's give them the same educational opportunities that the greatest generation had." It's a simple concept.

I started off by myself, introducing this bill on my first day as a senator. We now have 57 sponsors on this bill. We're going to get it done.

When people came back from World War II, they had all their tuition paid for, all their books bought, and a monthly stipend. The Montgomery GI Bill today would cover about 14 percent of the cost if you wanted to go to one of our major schools. I feel very strongly as a steward of the well-being of the United States military that we should be putting those sorts of benefits in place.

The long and short of my visit with you today is this: Those of you who are soon going to accept your commissions and then go on to serve the military in this very difficult time are at the beginning of your careers. But you are in the middle of a very important continuum. The examples of those who went before us are the markings of how you have shaped yourself with this responsibility. A concern for those you leave behind, just as I still feel the concern for those I served with all those years ago, is the earmark of the United States military.

This notion is that we are all part of a continuum. You should learn from people such as Marshall, people such as Eisenhower, people such as your commanders in your ROTC units. When you learn from their example, in a mentoring process, you become a part of this continuum. It is that loop that defines the United States military as a unique institution in our society. And I would hope that 40 years from now, those of you who are going to go out and serve -- whether it is for four years or for 40 -- will feel that same sense of responsibility. And that you will be able to stand up in a place like this and say: "I took care of my people."

Thank you very much.

By Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writers

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is basing his bid for the White House on his credentials as a decorated veteran and leader on defense policy, has become the target of veterans groups pushing hard for more aid and relief for troops returning from conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

At issue is a growing slate of legislation to boost veterans' education assistance and to rest troops between combat assignments. Two of the bills were written by Sens. James Webb (D-Va.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), both fellow Vietnam veterans, and are expected to see votes in Congress soon. Those bills would substantially boost college assistance for returning war veterans to cover fully tuition at a state university, while mandating that troops spend a month out of the combat zone for every month in it.

A third measure, introduced yesterday by eight Democratic senators and two Republicans, would provide more education aid to National Guard members and reservists, especially those who have served on multiple tours in Iraq.

It is generally agreed that McCain is key to the bills' prospects for passage.

"John McCain's got a lot of things to focus on right now, but this isn't one of them," Webb said. "He needs to get on board."

For McCain, the growing pressure is not the kind of attention he has been seeking. His status as a Vietnam War hero has helped broaden his appeal with independents and some Democrats. His campaign takes as a given his support among veterans.

But on Monday, the group VoteVets.org, backed by the political action committee of retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark and the liberal documentary film production company Brave New Films, delivered petitions with nearly 30,000 signatures to McCain's Senate office, imploring him to back Webb's updated GI bill.

In an Internet ad, viewed more than 104,000 times, Iraq veteran Joshua Drake intones, "If I could talk to John McCain, I would try to appeal to him as a fellow vet." Robert Lopez, a former tank commander, adds: "He should put himself in our shoes."

McCain told reporters on his campaign plane Monday that he is open to boosting educational benefits for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and is working with colleagues on language changes to the Webb-Hagel bills.

"We are working on proposals of our own. I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women in the military," McCain said. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military."

All three measures could come up for votes this month or early next month, when the House and Senate consider a $108 billion emergency war spending bill. Some Democrats do not want to put Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the position of voting for the GI bill and "dwell time" amendments, only to have them vote against the war funding bill. Democrats worry that such votes would put them in a position similar to that of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004, when he said he supported a war funding bill before he voted against it.

But Democrats may break up the war bills into an Iraq funding measure that will pass largely with Republican votes, and an Afghanistan funding bill on which they will try to attach popular policy measures.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Act would substantially boost the higher-education benefit first approved for returning World War II fighters. It carries a cost of $2.5 billion to $4 billion over 10 years.

But it is not the price tag that gives Defense Department officials pause. It is the fear that a generous education benefit would persuade soldiers and Marines ending their tours to pursue an education rather than reenlist in the overstretched military.

For McCain and his allies, the Webb-Hagel "dwell time" amendment -- which mandates a month off for every month in combat -- has proven to be an easier political target.

"The worst thing you can do is let a bunch of politicians worrying about their reelections mandate troop rotations," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a close McCain ally.

But the GI bill has been far more difficult. The measure already has 55 co-sponsors in the Senate, including former Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.).

"I know my friend John McCain is taking a serious look at this legislation, and he'll do what he thinks is right," Hagel said yesterday. "Our country has found enough money to send our troops to war. There surely is enough money to make education opportunities available to those who have earned it and sacrificed for this country."

While Hagel took the soft sell, veterans groups have been considerably rougher. The group Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has begun advertising in Capitol Hill publications. The Veterans of Foreign Wars have sent its lobbyists to demand action.

"He's the odd man out," Jon Soltz, chairman of VoteVets and an Iraq war veteran, said of McCain. "You have 55 co-sponsors on this bill, and he's not one of them. He has to lead or follow."

Washington, DC - Senator Jim Webb issued the following statement on the first anniversary of the tragic shootings at Virginia Tech:

"A year ago today, a great tragedy shook the campus of Virginia Tech. I want to take a moment to commend the strength of the parents, spouses, family members and friends of those 32 students and faculty who were taken from us at that time. I would also like to express my continuing admiration for the Blacksburg community and the students of Virginia Tech, who have shown grace, humanity and resilience in the wake of such tragedy.

"This terrible tragedy underscores the need to ensure early access to counseling programs and the treatment of mental illness. It also calls attention to the need to review and correct federal guidelines so that school officials, administrators and law enforcement can work in tandem to effectively ensure the safety of our students while upholding their privacy.

"I have introduced legislation with Senator Warner to that effect, and it is my hope that it will soon pass the Congress.

"I join Governor Kaine in calling for a moment of silence at noon to honor the memory of those lost and the many lives they touched."

NOTE: To download audio of Senator Webb's statement, please go to: http://demradio.senate.gov/actualities/webb/webb080415.mp3

BY DAVID LERMAN
202-824-8224

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has suggested he would oppose a bipartisan measure by Virginia Sen. Jim Webb to expand college tuition benefits for military veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan.

McCain told reporters Monday he was working on alternative legislation aimed at ensuring that troops do not leave the military earlier than planned to go to college.

"We are working on proposals of our own," McCain said on his campaign plane, according to ABC News. "I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military. I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military, as well as for people to join the military."

McCain's new move comes as a blow to Webb, a freshman Democrat and former Navy secretary who had been quietly building bipartisan support for months. Webb's GI Bill, a centerpiece of his 2006 campaign, would pay the college tuition of many military veterans who have served since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The amount of tuition paid would not exceed the cost of the most expensive state school in a veteran's home state, in most cases.

The current Montgomery GI Bill pays only a small fraction of the cost of college today.

Just last week, Webb hailed the growing bipartisan support for his bill, which has attracted more than 170 co-sponsors in the House and 54 in the Senate.

Unlike last year, when he first introduced the measure, Webb now boasts at least 10 Republican senators as co-sponsors. Chief among them is his Virginia colleague, Sen. John Warner, a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and an early McCain backer.

"I think we have a very good shot at getting this bill done this year," Webb told reporters.

But McCain echoed the concern voiced by some in the Defense Department who worry that the promise of full college tuition could entice many troops to leave the military sooner than they otherwise might at a time of war.

Webb has bristled at that criticism, saying a college education should be viewed as "a cost of war" that is owed to veterans. Webb himself, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, used the GI bill to pay for his law school degree.

"There are too many people in the Pentagon who are seeing a good GI Bill as affecting retention rather than rewarding service," Webb said last week on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."

"So we need to get at those--politics aside, we need to get at those issues to help our troops."

Defense officials have expressed concern about the price tag of Webb's measure as they struggle to pay for two wars and repair broken equipment.

Webb put the cost of his bill at $2.5 billion to $4 billion a year. House backers of his measure said last week they hope to attach the measure to a war-spending bill that is expected to reach the House and Senate in coming weeks for a vote.

"It's truly a bipartisan effort and something that's long overdue," said Rep Peter King, R-N.Y. "We have to bring GI benefits into the 21st century."

By Michael Sluss
(804) 697-1585

RICHMOND -- U.S. Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia has introduced legislation that would give colleges greater latitude to share students' mental health records, responding to recommendations made by a panel that investigated the Virginia Tech shootings.

Webb's bill would allow schools to share treatment records with authorities in cases where a student poses a threat to himself or others. Webb introduced the bill Tuesday, the day before the anniversary of the campus shootings that left 32 Tech students and faculty members dead. U.S. Sen. John Warner of Virginia signed on as a co-sponsor.

Gunman Seung-Hui Cho, who committed suicide after the shootings, had a history of behavioral problems and had incidents with Tech students, faculty and counselors that raised questions about his mental health. But concerns about privacy laws restricted the flow of information about Cho's problems, according to the gubernatorial panel that investigated the shootings.

Webb's bill would amend the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act to clarify how the law applies to treatment records at college clinics. The legislation creates a "safe harbor" protection to ensure that schools would not violate the law by sharing treatment records with a "good faith belief" that the disclosure would protect the safety of the student or others. The bill also makes clear that on-campus clinics can share student records with off-campus health providers.

A panel appointed by Gov. Tim Kaine cited privacy laws as a barrier in addressing Cho's' behavioral problems.

The panel recommended the inclusion of a "safe harbor" provision in FERPA and called for explicit exceptions for treatment records. It also called for greater flexibility to allow for disclosures in an emergency.

Virginia lawmakers also have taken steps to eliminate barriers that restrict sharing of student health records. Kaine last month signed legislation requiring state colleges to notify a parent of a dependent student who receives treatment at a campus health or counseling center if there is a "substantial likelihood" that the student will harm himself or others in the near future.

Kaine's staff is planning a conference for later this year to help Virginia colleges deal with issues related to privacy laws.

Washington, DC - Senator Webb today submitted the following statement into the Senate Record at the Committee on Environment & Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests hearing on the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act:

"Good afternoon Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Domenici and members of the Committee. I would like to thank you for holding a hearing on this important matter. I am proud to join with my colleague, Senator Warner, in supporting the Virginia Ridge and Valley Act (S. 570). The Virginia Ridge and Valley Act would designate nearly 43,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest as wilderness or wilderness study areas. In addition, the legislation would designate more than 10,000 acres of the Jefferson National Forest as National Scenic Areas. If enacted, this bill would create new Wilderness Areas, new National Scenic Areas and would expand six existing Wilderness Areas in portions of Bland, Craig, Grayson, Giles, Lee, Montgomery and Smyth Counties, Virginia within the Jefferson National Forest.

"Virginia is fortunate to have such an abundant supply of pristine lands. The ridges and valleys of western Virginia are an integral part of the lives of its inhabitants and our state's shared heritage and the protection of these lands will preserve them for future generations to enjoy. Our children and grandchildren will be able to experience the same untouched landscapes their ancestors experienced for generations before.

"The bill will also help promote ecotourism in Southwest Virginia. Tourism is one of the fastest growing industries in Southwest Virginia and the designation of these wilderness and scenic areas within the region will support increased tourism and outdoor recreational opportunities. The areas under consideration will provide opportunities for solitude and wilderness recreation including hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, rock climbing, canoeing, backpacking, horseback riding and many other outdoor activities which are enjoyed by local residents and visitors alike.

"I would note that a similar bi-partisan measure, H.R. 1011, was approved by the House of Representatives in October of last year under the leadership of Congressman Rick Boucher. Congressman Boucher worked diligently with his colleagues in the Virginia delegation, the House and the Forest Service to pass this important piece of legislation. It enjoys the support of Congressmen Frank Wolf, Tom Davis, Jim Moran and Bobby Scott, as well as the late Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis. The legislation also been endorsed by Virginia Governor Tim Kaine and a broad range of local communities, local businesses, tourism organizations, and conservation groups."

HOME was pleased to have been chosen by US Senator Jim Webb to host his housing issue roundtable at our offices last Friday afternoon. Senator Webb joined the HOME team and other area housing partners to discuss the Foreclosure Prevention Act that passed the Senate last week, as well as to hear concerns and requests related to the current housing slump.

The Senator took a private tour around HOME's offices, meeting key staff, before hosting a well-attended press conference in our downstairs conference center. Connie Chamberlin echoed others concerns by emphasizing lending protections, fair housing, and foreclosure rescue scams to the Senator, whose staffer claimed was "incredibly impressed" with HOME. We look forward to continued work with the junior Senator from Virginia, as well as the dedicated partner organizations who came together to unite for housing.


Myra Howard
Vice President of External Affairs
Housing Opportunities Made Equal of Virginia, Inc.(HOME)
700 E. Franklin St. Suite 3A Richmond, VA 23219

SECOND CHANCE

Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., applauded President Bush's signing Wednesday of the Second Chance Act. The bill aims to reduce repeat criminal offenses and help former inmates transition to life after prison.

The bill would allocate $360 million towards a range of programs, including mental health counseling, academic and vocational education, and substance abuse treatment.

"Every American should applaud this effort to reduce repetitive crime in our country," Webb said.

Tidewater News

By R.E. SPEARS III
Staff Writer
res.spears@tidewaternews.com

WASHINGTON--Political leaders and opponents of a Navy outlying landing field heard something Thursday that they probably already knew.

Any strategy to fight the Navy's proposed OLF that suggests the sacrifice of Oceana Naval Air Station will earn little support in Washington.

A U.S. senator, two senators' aides and a congressman all made it clear during a meeting here Thursday afternoon that they could not support OLF opponents at the expense of losing Oceana from Virginia Beach.

The Commonwealth of Virginia gets $43 billion a year in benefits from Department of Defense installations in the state, Sen. Jim Webb told the 25 or so who attended the meeting in a stuffy, packed conference room in the Russell Senate Office Building.

"If we're going to put Oceana on the table, frankly it is going to be hard to get a consensus on that," added U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-3rd). "Giving up on Oceana is going to be heavy lifting."

Scott's district includes Surry County, one of three Virginia locations being studied by the Navy for the "field carrier landing practice" facility.

Southampton and Sussex counties share the other two Virginia sites under consideration. Two others are located in North Carolina.

Scott, Webb and members of their staffs attended the meeting with members of U.S. Sen. John Warner's staff and a representative from Gov. Timothy M. Kaine's office.

Local officials who made the trip included Del. Roslyn Tyler (D-75th), Del. William Barlow (D-64th), most of Southampton County's and Sussex County's boards of supervisors, a member of Surry's Board of Supervisors and county administrators and other officials from Southampton, Sussex, Surry and Greensville counties.

Barry Steinberg, a Washington, D.C., lawyer hired by the four counties, made brief presentations to both Webb and Scott. Both Barlow and Tyler also made impassioned pleas for support.

Steinberg argued that Oceana "is broken," as evidenced by the report from the last Base Realignment and Closure Commission. Those problems will not be solved by a new OLF, he said.

"We could spend $100 million putting an OLF in Southampton, Sussex or Surry County and wake up five years from now and realize we've got to move the master jet base because the next generation of fighter won't work in Oceana."

Senator Plans to Speak with Representatives of Community Housing Programs in Richmond, Friday


Washington, DC- The Senate today overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill cosponsored by Senator Jim Webb that will help Virginians and communities across the Commonwealth seek relief from the nationwide housing crisis.

The "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008" expands counseling for borrowers at risk of default; increases refinancing opportunities; ensures that consumers are provided meaningful disclosures about the terms of their loans; and provides local governments with development grants to purchase and rehabilitate foreclosed properties.

"I am pleased that the Senate was able to quickly finalize a measure that provides much-needed relief for homeowners and communities," said Senator Webb. "We can't expect to turn around a struggling economy with a single piece of legislation, but I believe this is a very strong first step."

"The bill we passed today is designed to help stem foreclosures and give federal resources directly to local governments to aid communities in recovering from this economic downturn," Webb continued. "While this bill represents progress, we need to continue to craft policies that help Americans who have been hurt in the current economic environment."

Senator Webb plans to visit Richmond on Friday, April 11th to meet with representatives of community housing programs to discuss further efforts to alleviate the growing housing crisis.

In Virginia, the foreclosure rate in the mortgage market has more than doubled since the first quarter of 2006. With increased foreclosures, many communities are seeing a decrease in home prices. It is estimated that Virginia will lose close to $2.21 billion in mortgage-related foreclosure costs over the next year and a half.

The "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008," includes the following important provisions:

* Assisting Communities Devastated by Foreclosures. Homes that have been foreclosed upon and are sitting unoccupied lead to declines in neighboring house values, increased crime and significant disinvestment. To ensure that communities can mitigate these harmful effects of foreclosures, $4 billion is provided to communities hardest hit by foreclosures and delinquencies. These supplemental Community Development Block Grant Funds will be used to purchase foreclosed homes, at a discount, and rehabilitate or redevelop the homes to stabilize neighborhoods and stem the significant losses in house values of neighboring homes.

* Providing Pre-Foreclosure Counseling for Families in Need. To help families avoid foreclosure, this bill provides $100 million in additional funding for housing counseling. These funds will be distributed by the Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation by the end of 2008 to ensure families can quickly get the help they need. As many as 250,000 additional families connect with their mortgage servicer or lender to explore options that will keep them in their homes as a result of these counseling funds.

* Enhancing Mortgage Disclosure. To ensure that consumers are provided with timely and meaningful disclosures in connection with mortgages, the bill expands the types of home loans subject to early disclosures (within three days of application) under the Truth In Lending Act (TILA) including refinancings. The bill requires that disclosures be provided no later than 7 days prior to closing so borrowers can shop for another loan if not satisfied with the terms. The bill requires a new disclosure that informs borrowers of the maximum monthly payments possible under their loan, and also increases the range of statutory damages for TILA violations from the current $200 to $2000 to $400 to $4000.

* Mortgage Revenue Bonds. To provide for refinancing of subprime loans, mortgages for first-time homebuyers and multifamily rental housing, $10 billion of Federal tax-exempt private activity bond authority is included in this bill. The measure also exempts interest earned on the bonds from the alternative minimum tax.

* Veterans. To assist returning soldiers avoid foreclosure, this bill lengthens the time a lender must wait before starting foreclosure from three months to nine months after a soldier returns from service and also provides returning soldiers with one year relief from increases in mortgage interest rates. In addition, the Department of Defense is required to establish a counseling program to ensure veterans and active service members can access assistance if facing financial difficulties. Also included is a provision that increases the V.A. loan guarantee amount, so that veterans have additional homeownership opportunities.

For more information on Senator Webb's visit to Richmond on Friday, contact Kimberly Hunter at: Kimberly_Hunter@webb.senate.gov or 202-228-5258.

By Wes Allison

WASHINGTON -- Seeking to boost recruitment and reward the huge role the National Guard and Reserves are playing in Afghanistan and Iraq, a bipartisan group of congressional lawmakers on Thursday pushed the biggest expansion of the GI Bill since World War II.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act, known on Capitol Hill as the GI II Bill, would give members of the National Guard and Reserves who are called to active duty the same opportunities for federal tuition assistance as members of the standing Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.

That's nearly half a million part-time soldiers, airmen, Marines and sailors since the invasions of Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. The estimated cost would be $2-billion to $4-billion per year.

"As we rely on the Guard and Reserve more and more, it's only fair that they be included in a bill offering educational benefits," said Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Brooksville, the lead Republican sponsor of the bill in the House.

The House version, which was filed late Wednesday night, has more than 170 Democratic and Republican sponsors. The Senate version, which is sponsored by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., was filed early this year and has 52 sponsors, more than half the Senate.

The last update for education benefits for service people, the 1984 Montgomery GI Bill, provided a small stipend for tuition to members of the National Guard, but the payments stop when they leave the Guard. A 2004 program also gives reservists up to $880 per month for tuition.

The GI II Bill would mark a substantial increase: Members of the Guard and Reserves could qualify for the highest tuition rate of a public university in their state, as well as a housing stipend.

If they chose to attend a private school, the government would match whatever assistance the school provided them.

But to receive full tuition for a four-year degree, service members would have to serve on active duty for a total of at least 36 months, aides said. Those who serve less would qualify for a proportional amount.

Those who served on active duty in the Guard and Reserves also could use the benefit at any time within 15 years of leaving active duty.

"This is something which is long overdue," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., another co-sponsor. "We have to bring GI benefits into the 21st century, and we also need to acknowledge the tremendous" contribution of the Guard and Reserves in Iraq and Afghanistan.

So far, nearly 255,000 members of the National Guard have been activated and deployed for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, along with 202,000 members of the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Reserves.

According to the Florida Department of Military Affairs, about 6,200 of those Guard members are from Florida. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Army Reserve said another 1,850 reservists from Florida are deployed now, but figures for how many reservists have been deployed from Florida overall were not available.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., back the bill, but its prospects are neither clear nor assured. The Defense Department has opposed the expansion of the program in the past because of the cost. House sponsors hope to attach it to the next supplemental spending bill for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but President Bush has taken a dim view of using war-funding bills for other projects.

Brown-Waite and Mitchell said they believe the tuition assistance will entice more people to join the Guard and Reserves, which have had trouble recruiting because of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the steep price, Mitchell said the bill is morally right and would end up paying for itself.

"This is the cost of war," Mitchell said. "We can't shortchange, whether it's educational benefits or medical benefits or any other kind of benefits . . . Once we went down the road to engage the military as we have, this is our obligation."

Wes Allison can be reached at allison@sptimes.com or (202) 463-0577.

Washington, DC--The Senate today passed a measure sponsored by Virginia's Senators Jim Webb and John Warner to designate a 175-mile corridor along U.S. Route 15 in Northern and Central Virginia as a National Heritage Area. The region designated by the "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act" is home to some of the nation's most notable and historic landmarks, including Monticello, Montpelier, Manassas and Gettysburg.

A National Heritage Area is a region designated by the U.S. Congress where natural, cultural, historic, and recreational resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally distinctive area arising from patterns of human activity, shaped by geography. Congress has conferred this designation on 37 regions in the country.

"I am pleased to have worked with my colleagues in the Senate to secure passage of legislation that would establish the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area," said Senator Webb. "I would like to especially thank my colleague, Senator Warner, who championed this legislation in the Senate."

The area designated in the Hallowed Ground Act encompasses eight presidential homes or sites, 15 National Historic Landmarks, 47 historic districts and the largest collection of Revolutionary War sites and Civil War battlefields in America.

"The passage of this bill represents the combined efforts of numerous Virginia communities, businesses and citizens to honor our nation's heritage," continued Webb. "The area encompasses the largest collection of Civil War battlefields in the country. By designating this area as a National Heritage Area, we are helping to preserve these sites for future generations to enjoy through the promotion of heritage tourism."

For more information about the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area, visit: www.HallowedGround.org.

"Second Chance Act" Increases Funding for Ex-Offender Re-Entry Programs

Washington, DC -Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) today expressed his strong support for the enactment into law of the "Second Chance Act," bi-partisan legislation that seeks to make communities safer by providing the resources necessary to reduce recidivism rates. Webb, a cosponsor of the measure, has made the nation's growing prison population one of his top legislative priorities.

The Second Chance Act, passed last month by the House and Senate, was signed into law this week. The bill allocates $360 million towards a variety of ex-offender reentry programs, including mental health counseling, academic and vocational education, and substance abuse treatment. The legislation also authorizes the Bureau of Justice Statistics to conduct research regarding re-entry programs and creates a federal taskforce to improve inter-agency collaboration on re-entry initiatives.

"Every American should applaud this effort to reduce repetitive crime in our country," said Webb. "The Second Chance Act is a proactive measure that works to provide job training, drug treatment, and other re-entry programs to help ex-offenders stay off the streets and out of jail. This bill is an important step in addressing the factors that contribute to recidivism and provides important community resources to combat this disturbing trend."

The United States, with 2.3 million people in prison, has the highest reported incarceration rate in the world and faces enormous problems of offender reentry and recidivism. The number of ex-offenders reentering their communities from state and federal prisons increased fourfold in the past two decades. On average, two out of three released prisoners will be rearrested and one in two will return to prison within three years of release.

Offenders typically reenter communities with insufficient monitoring, little or no job skills, inadequate access to drug treatment and housing, few positive influences, a scarcity of basic physical and mental health services, and poor basic life skills.

"We must address the widespread costs of America's high incarceration and recidivism rates," said Webb. "I am committed to continuing a national dialogue on these issues and working toward meaningful and workable solutions."

Governor Tim Kaine has been a vocal supporter of this bill as state governments bear the brunt of costs associated with incarceration. In 2006 alone, states spent an estimated $2 billion on prison construction, three times the amount they were spending fifteen years earlier. The combined expenditures of local governments, state governments, and the federal government for law enforcement and corrections total over $200 billion annually.

"Programs that help reintegrate and stabilize ex-offenders as they leave prison make our communities safer," said Governor Kaine. "The Second Chance Act will make resources available to support important re-entry programs in the states, helping us improve public safety and reduce costs associated with recidivism."

To read Senator Webb's opening statement from October's JEC Hearing on incarceration rates, visit: http://www.webb.senate.gov/newsroom/record.cfm?id=284989&

Is American security improved, they ask; progress is claimed

By NEIL H. SIMON
MEDIA GENERAL NEWS SERVICE


WASHINGTON -- Sens. Jim Webb and John W. Warner of Virginia joined yesterday in a bipartisan challenge to the top commander of the Iraq war.

Webb, a Democrat, and Warner, a Republican, both former secretaries of the Navy, questioned whether the five-year conflict has improved the safety of Americans or the strategy of the U.S. military.

They fired questions at Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq, and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Warner asked Petraeus whether the war is "worth it."

"Is all this sacrifice bringing out a more secure America?" he asked Petraeus.

Petraeus said, "Ultimately, it can only be answered by history," but the general pointed to the death of Saddam Hussein and the planting of seeds of democracy as successes in Iraq.

"Though the germination of those seeds has been slow, there has been some growth," he said.

With respect to al-Qaida, Iranian influence in Iraq, and stability in the region, "I do believe we have made progress in the past year," Petraeus said.

But Warner pressed further. "Up to 80 percent of the American people just don't accept the premise that it's worth it. Can you tell us in simple language that it is worth it?"

Petraeus answered, "I do believe it is worth it. I took on the task and the privilege of commanding the multinational forces, because I do believe it is worth it," he said.

Petraeus testified that after the additional U.S. troops sent to Iraq last year are pulled out this July, the military will wait 45 days before considering whether to withdraw more of the roughly 140,000 troops remaining in the country.

Webb said keeping so many troops in Iraq this summer could continue to prevent the military from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I start wondering how we're going to do that and still meet the demands that are outside Iraq," he said.

But several Senate supporters of the troop-surge strategy said it is giving Iraqi military and civilian leaders time to establish themselves and prevent al-Qaida from building its base in Iraq.

Webb asked Crocker why the Bush administration will not share with Congress an agreement now being drafted to authorize a U.S. troop presence in Iraq beyond 2008, when the current United Nations resolution expires.

Crocker said that because the agreement will not call for establishing permanent bases in Iraq, it does not need the Senate's approval, a step that is constitutionally required for international treaties.

Before the hearing, 400 veterans rallied in support of the troop-surge strategy.

By David Lerman
202-824-8224

WASHINGTON - When the top military commander in Iraq briefed Congress on Tuesday on plans for an open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to the war, Virginia Sen. John Warner responded with a simple question:

"Is all this sacrifice bringing about a more secure America?" Warner asked Army Gen. David Petraeus, who called for an indefinite suspension of a troop drawdown starting this summer.

After five years of war and more than 4,000 American deaths, the United States will still have about 140,000 troops in Iraq by July, or about 10,000 more than were there when President Bush announced a troop surge last year.

"There is no longer a ruthless dictator in Iraq who terrorized his neighbors," Petreus offered. "Ultimately, it can only be answered by history."

Unsatisfied by the response, Warner pressed on:

"Does that translate into a greater security for those of us here at home?" he asked.

Petraeus then gave a direct reply to the question that appeared to stump him in his previous report to Congress six months ago.

"I do believe it is worth it," he said of the war. "I do believe the interests there are of enormous importance to our country."

Warner, a centrist Republican who has tried to steer a middle course on Iraq, did not indicate whether he agreed with Petraeus' conclusion. But the line of questioning underscored the deep skepticism among many in Congress about the effectiveness of the current strategy in Iraq.

Polls have found large majorities of Americans now believe the war was a mistake. Democrats, who control Congress, are pushing for a speedy withdrawal of troops and a renewed diplomatic effort to broker a political settlement.

Petraeus, however, offered them no such plans. Instead, he outlined a wait-and-see approach that would give the Bush administration the option of maintaining current force levels in Iraq for the rest of the year.

When the current drawdown is completed in July, Petraeus said, he recommends the military conduct a 45-day "period of consolidation and evaluation," followed by an indefinite "process of assessment to examine the conditions on the ground."

"This approach does not allow establishment of a set withdrawal timetable," Petraeus told the Senate Armed Services Committee. "However, it does provide the flexibility those of us on the ground need to preserve the still-fragile security gains our troopers have fought so hard and sacrificed so much to achieve."

But Virginia Sen. Jim Webb, an outspoken Democratic critic of the war, questioned how the United States can afford to keep 140,000 troops in Iraq indefinitely while facing other threats around the world.

"I start wondering how we're going to do that and still meet the demands that are outside Iraq," Webb said. With so many forces tied down in Iraq, he asked, "Where are we going to get these people?"

Petraeus did not address the question directly, but said his recommendation to suspend the troop drawdown won approval from his military superiors, including Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Petraeus used his daylong appearance before Senate committees to cite evidence of progress in Iraq that has occurred since the surge of about 30,000 troops began last year. Armed with charts, Petraeus reported Iraqi civilian deaths and high-profile attacks have declined markedly in the last year.

But Webb, a decorated Vietnam combat veteran, suggested the effect of the surge may be overstated. The so-called "Sunni awakening" that turned tribal chiefs against al-Qaida terrorists in parts of the country, he said, began before the surge of troops was announced.

"I know that for a fact because my son was there as a Marine rifleman," Webb said.

Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker are scheduled to brief the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees today.

By Doug Waters

WASHINGTON -- Senators Jim Webb and John Warner of Virginia joined Tuesday in a bipartisan challenge to the top commander of the Iraq war, questioning whether the five-year conflict has improved the safety of Americans or the strategy of the U.S. military.

Webb, a Democrat, and Warner, a Republican, both former secretaries of the Navy, fired questions at Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multi-national force in Iraq, and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Petraeus and Crocker last testified on the war in September.

Warner asked Petraeus whether the war is making Americans more secure.

"Up to 80 percent of the American people just don't accept the premise that it's worth it. Can you tell us in simple language that it is worth it?" Warner said.

Petraeus answered, "I do believe it is worth it."

He said he took on the task and privilege of commanding the multi-national forces, because I do believe it is worth it, he said. Regarding al-Qaida, Iranian influence in Iraq and stability in the region, Petraeus said, "I do believe we have made progress in the past year."

Petraeus testified that after the additional U.S. troops sent to Iraq in 2006 are pulled out this July, the military will wait 45 days before considering whether to withdraw more of the roughly 140,000 troops remaining in the country.

"Withdrawing too many forces too quickly could jeopardize the progress of the past year," he said.

Webb said keeping so many troops in Iraq this summer could continue to prevent the military from fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"I start wondering how we're going to do that and still meet the demands that are outside Iraq," he said.

But several Senate supporters of the troop surge strategy, which Petraeus credited with bringing the lowest levels of violence to Iraq in three years, said it is working, giving Iraqi military and civilian leaders time to establish themselves and prevent al-Qaida from building its base in Iraq.

"Al-Qaida cannot stand the surge," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. said. "If you put a list of people who wanted us to leave, the number one group would be al-Qaida, because you've been kicking them all over Iraq."

Webb challenged Crocker on the diplomatic front, asking why the Bush administration will not share with Congress an agreement now being drafted to authorize a U.S. troop presence in Iraq beyond 2008, when the current United Nations resolution expires.

Crocker said that because the agreement will not call for establishing permanent bases in Iraq, it does not need the Senate's approval, a step that is constitutionally required for international treaties.

But under questioning from Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Crocker said Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government would be sharing the agreement with its parliament.

Before the hearing, 400 veterans rallied in support of the troop surge strategy.

"It's obviously working and it's the first strategy that has," said Coby Dillard of Richmond, who served in the U.S. Navy aboard the USS Constellation during the initial invasion of Iraq.

The mission was not accomplished in 2003, Dillard said, but "it's beginning to turn around. Iraqis are beginning to standup on their own."

At the rally, Graham thanked the veterans for their work to drum up legislative support for the war effort.

"The only thing between us and winning is the Congress. Keep the pressure up," Graham said.

MSNBC

SPEAKERS:
SEN. JIM WEBB, D-VA.
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST



MATTHEWS: The Petraeus-Crocker hearings today. Senator Jim Webb

is Democrat from Virginia who sits on the Armed Services Committee and

the Foreign Relations Committee.



Senator Webb, you saw all day the testimony. I didn't get

anything out of it except that we're staying there indefinitely; there

is no condition we can point to. Petraeus and Crocker never told us

what to look for so we can know when we're getting close to the end of

the tunnel. I was very dissatisfied by the hearings. You, sir?



WEBB: Well, we're seeing the same thing that we saw in

September. And quite frankly, their mandate is to discuss only Iraq.

Their problems are regional and well beyond Iraq. And so when you go

to where the solutions are.



For instance, there was testimony by Ambassador Crocker saying

that Al Qaida activities are markedly down inside Iraq, but that we

need to stay there because Al Qaida may become or they want Al Qaida

to become the centerpiece of international terror.



That's an old argument. It's not true anymore. Look at what's

happened to the United States with respect to this engagement in Iraq.

We're caught inside a double mouse trap. On the one hand, we've tied

up the greatest maneuver forces in the world, the United States Army

and Marine Corps, block by block, city by city in one spot while the

forces of international terrorism have sort of recentered themselves.

And on the other, we've neglected all these larger strategic issues.



So it's kind of interesting, actually, the difference in tone

from the senators on armed services versus foreign relations, because

foreign relations, the diplomatic side really came out a lot more.



MATTHEWS: Well, didn't they set goals that could be achieved in

the near future?



WEBB: No. And in fact, I think what we're seeing is their

attempt to deal with a situation that is changing underneath our feet.

They're doing a great job in terms of always what our military has

been doing in Iraq. But it's not going to change until you get a new

president.



This is -- I've been saying for four years, this is a situation

that's only going to change with strong, robust diplomacy. And

whenever they were asked questions about this, and they were asked

from both sides on the Foreign Relations Committee, about where is the

diplomacy that will bring us out of this? They basically responded

with this civilian program or that civilian program, rather than the

truth of the matter, which is that kind of diplomacy is only going to

happen from the very top.



So I think they were pretty hamstrung in what they were able to

say.



MATTHEWS: Well, here's the senator, the chairman on the Armed

Services Committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, asking a question

of General Petraeus today.



(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)



GENERAL DAVID PETRAEUS (USA), COMMANDER, MULTI-NATIONAL FORCE-

IRAQ: It's when the conditions are met that we can make a

recommendation for further reductions.



SEN. CARL LEVIN, D-MICH.: Could it be three months?



PETRAEUS: Sir, again, at the end of the period of consolidation

and evaluation, it could be right then or it could be longer. Again,

it is when...



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring them home! Bring them home!



LEVIN: General...



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring them home! Bring them home!



LEVIN: General, we're going to ask you a different question.

Please don't scream.



UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Bring them home!



LEVIN: That's all I'm asking.



PETRAEUS: When the conditions are met.



LEVIN: I understand, but I'm just asking a direct question.

Could that be as long as three months?



PETRAEUS: It could be, sir.



LEVIN: Could it be as long as four months?



PETRAEUS: Sir, it is when the conditions are met.



(END VIDEO CLIP)



MATTHEWS: Well, I'll say one thing, Senator, for that noisy guy

in the back of the room, that heckler, at least he had a clear-cut

policy. He said was bring them home. I can't understand, listening

to General Petraeus, why is he being put in a position of explaining

administration policy. Shouldn't you have the commander in chief

sitting in that chair, come up with this policy?



WEBB: There are two hesitations I have from watching the

testimony today. One is, I don't see, in military terms, why you have

to have a pause like this. I think it's a political reason.



And who knows? You may see an announcement on October the 30th

that, all of a sudden, we're going to bring more troops home. I don't

-- I'm not comfortable with what was said in that regard.



The other is Iran keeps coming out from the -- from the other

side and from the testimony in a way that there is something else

that's going to happen later this week, early next week, where I think

we're going to see a lot more finger-pointing at Iran.



When the truth of this, and something that I tried to say in the

earlier hearing, we have failed at the top to adequately and

aggressively deal with the Iranian situation for five or six years.

And now, they're going to be dealing with it, essentially, tactically.



MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at General Petraeus here on the role

of Congress as he sees it.



(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)



PETRAEUS: I fully understand the role of this body and the folks

up the chain of command from me in determining where do they take the

risk? And at the end of the day, as Senator Able (ph) said, you

salute and you try to take the hill with what you're given.



(END VIDEO CLIP)



MATTHEWS: Isn't that the role of the general, Senator, to take

orders, try to follow them with what you've got in terms of resources?

And here, he's put in a position of trying to defend an ideology that

took us into Iraq, an ideology that says, "Stay there to build a

nation."



WEBB: Well, here's where this is going to come to a head. I

actually asked the general about this in the armed services side of

the hearing. And that is, we are going to reduce the troop level to

141,000, which is 10,000 more than we had before the surge began at

the same time that we were seeing other commanders, particularly in

the Afghanistan area, asking for more troops. And we've already burnt

out our troops.



MATTHEWS: Yes.



WEBB: So how are we going to come to a conclusion on this? And

I asked General Petraeus specifically whether Admiral Mullen had

approved this troop level of 141,000. And so we need to hear from

Admiral Mullen later this week about how he sees this troop level and

the burn out of our ground forces, playing into what he wants to do in

Afghanistan.



MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much, Senator Webb of Virginia.