California Democrats are clashing with members of their party over a package of antitrust bills targeting the top tech companies in the country.

Democratic lawmakers from California on the House Judiciary Committee, particularly those representing tech-heavy Bay Area districts, voted against the majority of their colleagues over the past two days on five antitrust bills that seek to rein in the market power of Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Google.

The stiff opposition from the California delegation may cause further hurdles as the legislation heads to the House floor, with moderate and progressive Democrats, as well as prominent Republicans, voicing concern over the bills.

ADVERTISEMENT

Democratic Reps. Zoe LofgrenZoe Ellen LofgrenHillicon Valley: House advances six bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest | Google to delay cookie phase out until 2023 | Appeals court rules against Baltimore Police Department aerial surveillance program California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight House advances five bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest MORE, Eric SwalwellEric Michael SwalwellHillicon Valley: House advances six bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest | Google to delay cookie phase out until 2023 | Appeals court rules against Baltimore Police Department aerial surveillance program California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight House advances five bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest MORE and Lou CorreaJose (Lou) Luis CorreaHillicon Valley: House advances six bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest | Google to delay cookie phase out until 2023 | Appeals court rules against Baltimore Police Department aerial surveillance program California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Lawmakers roll out legislation to defend pipelines against cyber threats MORE — all from California — voted against advancing nearly every bill the committee marked up Wednesday and Thursday.

After the marathon two-day markup, they issued a joint statement with California Republican Reps. Tom McClintockThomas (Tom) Milller McClintockHillicon Valley: House advances six bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest | Google to delay cookie phase out until 2023 | Appeals court rules against Baltimore Police Department aerial surveillance program California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup MORE and Darrell IssaDarrell Edward IssaHillicon Valley: House advances six bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest | Google to delay cookie phase out until 2023 | Appeals court rules against Baltimore Police Department aerial surveillance program California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup MORE criticizing the legislation that stemmed from a lengthy investigation by a House Judiciary subcommittee.

“The 16-month-long investigation conducted by the Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law Subcommittee rightfully scrutinized digital markets in an effort to remove barriers to competition. Unfortunately, the resulting legislative proposals – which the full Committee did not hold a hearing on or have reasonable time to fully consider – fell short of adequately addressing identified problems in an effective way that serves Americans’ interests,” the lawmakers said.

The only bill the three Democrats supported was legislation that would increase filing fees for mergers. A companion measure was recently included in the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act passed by the Senate earlier this month.

Issa and McClintock opposed the merger fee bill, as did most Republicans on the House committee.

Click Here: new zealand warriors shirt

Meanwhile, California Reps. Ted LieuTed W. LieuCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup Communion vote puts spotlight on Hispanic Catholics MORE and Karen BassKaren Ruth BassLawmakers come to bipartisan framework agreement on police reform California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Thousands sent to emergency rooms every year due to violent police encounters: investigation MORE, who have districts in less tech-dominant areas, voted with the majority of their Democratic colleagues on advancing the antitrust measures.

ADVERTISEMENT

For most of the bills, which were introduced on June 11, Lofgren, Swalwell and Correa were the main Democratic detractors, though they were joined by Rep. Greg StantonGregory (Greg) John StantonCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight The Hill’s Morning Report – Biden: Back to the future on immigration, Afghanistan, Iran Ambitious House lawmakers look for promotions MORE (D-Ariz.) in opposing a bill that would prohibit dominant platforms from self-preferencing their own services, as well as one that could lead to the break up of tech companies, a measure Lofgren called an “extreme remedy.”

“I think this bill is overbroad and will have serious adverse consequences for Americans,” Lofgren said of the legislation introduced by Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalDemocrats seek to calm nervous left California Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight House advances five bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest MORE (D-Wash.), whose district includes many Microsoft employees. 

The measure ultimately advanced on a 21-20 vote. Republican Reps. Ken BuckKenneth (Ken) Robert BuckCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup Tech industry pushes for delay in antitrust legislation MORE (Colo.), the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee, and Matt GaetzMatthew (Matt) GaetzCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Britney Spears case casts harsh light on conservatorships House advances five bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest MORE (Fla.) joined most Democrats in voting for the bill.

Even the least contentious bill — one that would ensure state attorneys general are able to remain in the court they select rather than having cases moved to venues preferred by defendants — drew opposition from some California lawmakers.

Of the seven “no” votes on the bill, five were California representatives: Lofgren, Swalwell, Correa, Issa and McClintock. They were joined by Republican Reps. Thomas MassieThomas Harold MassieCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup GOP increasingly balks at calling Jan. 6 an insurrection MORE (Ky.) and Michelle Fisbhack (Minn.).

Progressive Rep. Ro KhannaRohit (Ro) KhannaCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup Democrats fear they are running out of time on Biden agenda MORE (Calif.), whose district covers much of Silicon Valley, has also criticized the bills, saying the legislation needs to be written in a “much more thoughtful, accurate way.”

“I think some of the people who wrote it don’t understand all the details of how these platforms work. I say this as someone who wants stronger antitrust enforcement,” Khanna said during a Fox Business interview Wednesday.

Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiEquilibrium/Sustainability — Presented by NextEra Energy — Set millions of tires on fire, pay less than ,000 On The Money: Biden announces bipartisan deal on infrastructure, but Democratic leaders hold out for more Democrats seek to calm nervous left MORE (D-Calif.) broke from her Bay Area colleagues in voicing support for the antitrust legislation at a Thursday press conference.

“There has been concern on both sides of the aisle about the consolidation of power of the tech companies and this legislation is an attempt to address that in the interest of fairness, in the interest of competition, in the interest of meeting needs of people who are whose privacy whose data and all the rest is at the mercy of these tech companies,” Pelosi said.

She also dismissed concerns raised by the tech companies lobbying against the legislation. The New York Times reported earlier this week that Apple CEO Tim Cook called Pelosi and other members warning that the bills were being rushed and could end up hurting consumers. Pelosi said Thursday that she told Cook to put forth any “substantive concern” as Congress moves ahead with the proposals.

“They can put forth what they want to put forth, but we’re not going to ignore the consolidation that has happened and the concern that exists on both sides of the aisle,” Pelosi said.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in support of the bills, including the unlikely allies of Jayapal, Gaetz and Antitrust Subcommittee Chairman David CicillineDavid CicillineCalifornia Democrats clash over tech antitrust fight House advances five bills targeting Big Tech after overnight slugfest Tech antitrust bills create strange bedfellows in House markup MORE (D-R.I.), have dismissed arguments that the legislation was rushed in any way, pointing to the 16-month bipartisan investigation into the market power of the four tech giants.

“I urge my colleagues to read the report,” Cicilline said.

He also called for members to read the “pleas from small businesses” that are “begging them to do something.”

It’s unclear when the bills will head to the House floor for a vote, but centrist Democrats are already putting pressure on Pelosi to pump the brakes and have the committee hold hearings before proceeding to a House vote. Opposition from moderate Democrats along with members of the California delegation could prove problematic and risk dividing the party publicly in a floor vote.

Jayapal, who leads the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said she’d like to see a vote as soon as possible, though she acknowledged it likely won’t happen until September.

Despite pushback from some members of her party, Jayapal said she thinks the bills can pass the House, especially if the subcommittee’s report is highlighted.

“I think we’re looking to make sure we can give people the information we need to show them the bipartisan way that we did this, to show them kind of the detailed testimony we got, and the effects on small businesses and why this is important,” she told The Hill.

“I think we can get there. This is a really important piece of the Democratic party’s agenda and I also think, as you see, that there’s a lot of bipartisan support.”

Treasury Secretary Janet YellenJanet Louise YellenOn The Money: Biden to fire FHFA director after Supreme Court removes restriction | Yellen pleads with Congress to raise debt ceiling Yellen pleads with Congress to raise debt ceiling, avoid ‘unthinkable’ default Biden’s corporate tax rate hike: Searching for a spending plan MORE implored lawmakers Wednesday to suspend the legal limit on how much debt the U.S. can owe before it kicks back in on Aug. 1, warning that failure to do so would be “unthinkable” and “have absolutely catastrophic economic consequences.”

In testimony before a Senate subcommittee, Yellen urged Congress to make sure the U.S. does not default on its debt by raising and suspending the so-called debt ceiling. A two-year deal to suspend the debt limit expires after July 31, at which point the Treasury Department would have to take “extraordinary measures” to prevent the U.S. from defaulting.

“I believe it would precipitate a financial crisis. It would threaten the jobs and savings of Americans and at a time when we’re still recovering from the COVID pandemic,” Yellen said of a default on the U.S. debt.

ADVERTISEMENT

“I would plead with Congress simply to protect the full faith and credit of the United States by acting to raise or suspend the debt limit as soon as possible.”

Yellen’s plea comes as Republican lawmakers warn that they will not support a suspension of the debt ceiling unless President BidenJoe BidenSchumer vows to advance two-pronged infrastructure plan next month Biden appoints veteran housing, banking regulator as acting FHFA chief Iran claims U.S. to lift all oil sanctions but State Department says ‘nothing is agreed’ MORE and Democrats agree to cut spending or take other debt reduction measures. Senate GOP leaders told The Hill last week that they don’t expect enough Republicans in the upper chamber to support a clean debt ceiling increase to avert a filibuster.

Democrats and Republicans have squared off over the debt ceiling several times over the past decade and briefly allowed the U.S. to surpass it during the Trump administration. Yellen warned Wednesday, however, that the economic impact of COVID-19 has limited Treasury’s ability to know how long it can avert a default.

“We can’t tolerate any chance of defaulting on the government debt, and there is a lot of uncertainty. It’s possible that we could reach that point,” Yellen said, adding that Treasury could exhaust extraordinary measures in the middle of the August congressional recess.

If the U.S. defaults on its debt, trillion of dollars in Treasury bonds held by foreign governments and investors could go from nearly as safe as cash to potentially irredeemable. Experts warn that such an occurrence could trigger a global financial crisis given how much of the world’s commerce is underpinned by the U.S. dollar.

ADVERTISEMENT

Even so, the White House has expressed confidence that Biden and Congress will be able to reach a deal to raise the debt limit.

“The president believes that Congress will do what they’ve done three times during the Trump administration, which is to raise the debt ceiling,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Monday.

“We know that that will be a central focus and discussion, probably even in here, come the fall, but he expects they will do what they’ve done three times [under former President TrumpDonald TrumpIran claims U.S. to lift all oil sanctions but State Department says ‘nothing is agreed’ Ivanka Trump, Kushner distance themselves from Trump claims on election: CNN Overnight Defense: Joint Chiefs chairman clashes with GOP on critical race theory | House bill introduced to overhaul military justice system as sexual assault reform builds momentum MORE],” she added.

Updated at 3:40 p.m.

Click Here: nrl jerseys 2020

Three were killed in Germany and six were wounded after a stabbing occurred in Wuerzburg.

Bild newspaper reported police have not given many details about the situation with the condition of the wounded unknown, according to Reuters.

Police stopped the attack by shooting the attacker, reportedly a young man, in the leg.

ADVERTISEMENT

Social media videos of the attack show other men using chairs to hold the young man with the knife back until police could arrive, Reuters reported.

The motive for the attack is currently unknown.

Police have said they had the situation under control.

Click Here: cheap nike men shoes

The Biden administration is confident the U.S. can work with Russia to keep open a critical border crossing between Turkey and Syria that serves as a lifeline for humanitarian assistance to millions of Syrians suffering after a decade of war, a senior State Department official said Friday.

Acting Assistant Secretary for Near East Asian Affairs Joey Hood answered in the affirmative when asked if the U.S. is optimistic it can keep open the Bab al-Hawa crossing , which facilitates about 1,000 trucks each month to deliver critical humanitarian assistance to an estimated 1.4 million Syrians in the northwest of the country.

“The answer is yes,” Hood said in a briefing with reporters, previewing Secretary of State Antony BlinkenAntony BlinkenUN envoy calls for renewed discussion on Syrian war Administration says it can work with Russia on key Syrian crossing point The Hill’s Morning Report – Presented by Facebook – Will this infrastructure deal pass? MORE’s upcoming meeting in Italy on the crisis in Syria.

Click Here: Club América soccer tracksuit

ADVERTISEMENT

“We see here an opportunity to work constructively with Russia on this issue of getting humanitarian assistance to Syrians all across the country,” he said, adding that Syrians are in desperate need of assistance to beat back the COVID-19 pandemic.

“It’s a growing humanitarian problem and one that I don’t think anyone wants to see exacerbated.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had hinted on Tuesday that Russia could use its veto power in the United Nations Security Council to block the mandate for the border-crossing’s renewal, which is set to expire on July 10, The Associated Press reported.

Since January 2020, Russia has used its veto power to reduce the number of border crossings for humanitarian assistance from four to the remaining one.

Moscow argues that humanitarian assistance should be delivered through Damascus, which is controlled by embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, and is critical of Turkey facilitating access to areas that are largely controlled by rebel groups.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The situation where Turkey in reality fully controls the provision of humanitarian assistance to Syria is also unacceptable,” Lavrov reportedly said in oral remarks U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres on Tuesday.

The vote on the Bab al-Hawa crossing in the U.N. could pose a critical test for the U.S.-Russian relationship that President BidenJoe BidenSenate Republicans urge CDC to lift public transportation mask mandate AOC said she doubts Biden’s win would have been certified if GOP controlled the House Overnight Defense: Intel releases highly anticipated UFO report | Biden meets with Afghan president | Conservatives lash out at Milley MORE is working to steady amid a host of conflicts and following a summit with Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinAdministration says it can work with Russia on key Syrian crossing point Why aren’t Americans voting? US ambassador to Russia is back at his post MORE in Geneva last week.

Biden has said he seeks a stable and predictable relationship with Moscow to advance shared priorities on a host of global issues, including arms control, climate change, the pandemic and deescalating the chance of military conflict and nuclear war.

The two leaders agreed to reinstate their respective ambassadors, with U.S. ambassador to Russia John Sullivan returning to Moscow on Thursday and Russian ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Antonov arrived in Washington earlier this week.

North Korea said on Wednesday that it would not be engaging in talks with the United States that it believes would not make any progress.

“We are not considering even the possibility of any contact with the U.S., let alone having it, which would get us nowhere, only taking up precious time,” Foreign Minister Ri Son Gwon said, Reuters reported, citing state media.

North Korea and the U.S. have been at odds for years over the country’s nuclear missile program.

ADVERTISEMENT

The new U.S. envoy for North Korea said he was looking for a “positive response soon” from the country, with Ri’s comment seemingly making that unlikely, Reuters noted.

Kim Jong Yo, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong UnKim Jong Un North Korea says it won’t engage in talks with U.S. that would get nowhere Sister of North Korean leader dismisses prospects for talks with US Sullivan: Comments by North Korea’s Kim an ‘interesting signal’ MORE, said on Tuesday after the envoy’s comments that the U.S.’s thoughts of a meeting “would plunge them into a greater disappointment.”

The back-and-forth between the two countries began recently when Kim Jong Un “stressed the need to get prepared for both dialogue and confrontation, especially to get fully prepared for confrontation” at a meeting last week.

“We are awaiting a clear signal from Pyongyang as to whether they are prepared to sit down at the table to begin working in that direction,” national security adviser Jake SullivanJake Sullivan North Korea says it won’t engage in talks with U.S. that would get nowhere Iran claims U.S. to lift all oil sanctions but State Department says ‘nothing is agreed’ Iran says US has agreed to lift sanctions on oil, shipping MORE said in response. “His comments this week we regard as an interesting signal. And we will wait to see whether they are followed up with any kind of more direct communication to us about a potential path forward.” 

Click Here: cheap gold coast titans jerseys

Two House committees on Friday announced they are launching an investigation into the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) controversial approval of a new Alzheimer’s drug, including the drug’s $56,000 a year price.

The announcement from House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) and House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairwoman Carolyn MaloneyCarolyn MaloneyOvernight Health Care: House panels launch probe into Alzheimer’s drug | Half of public health workers experiencing mental health strain | Puerto Rico presses Congress to prevent ‘Medicaid cliff’ House panels launch investigation into controversial Alzheimer’s drug Energized Trump probes pose problems for Biden MORE (D-N.Y.) comes as the approval of Biogen’s drug Aduhelm earlier this month has provoked an outcry on numerous fronts.

The FDA has faced questions as to why it approved the drug given doubts about whether it actually works. The FDA’s advisory committee had recommended against approval, and three members resigned in protest of the approval. 

ADVERTISEMENT

The drugmaker, Biogen, then priced the treatment at $56,000 a year, stirring additional controversy and furthering Democratic calls for the government to lower drug prices. 

Click Here: cheap vans era shoes

“We have serious concerns about the steep price of Biogen’s new Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm and the process that led to its approval despite questions about the drug’s clinical benefit,” Pallone and Maloney said in a statement. 

“Our Committees will be investigating this matter so Congress and the American people can better understand why this drug was approved, how Biogen set its price and what impact this will have on research for future Alzheimer’s treatments and federal health care programs,” they added. 

The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that if 1 million Medicare beneficiaries take the drug, it would cost Medicare $57 billion per year, a price that is more than Medicare Part B currently spends on all other drugs combined.

“In 2017, nearly 2 million Medicare beneficiaries used one or more of the currently-available Alzheimer’s treatments,” according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

“We strongly support innovative treatments to help the millions of Americans who suffer from Alzheimer’s disease, but Aduhelm’s approval and its $56,000 annual price tag will have broader implications for seniors, providers, and taxpayers that warrant close examination,” Pallone and Maloney said. 

President BidenJoe BidenSenate Republicans urge CDC to lift public transportation mask mandate AOC said she doubts Biden’s win would have been certified if GOP controlled the House Overnight Defense: Intel releases highly anticipated UFO report | Biden meets with Afghan president | Conservatives lash out at Milley MORE’s plan to evacuate tens of thousands of Afghans who assisted U.S. military efforts in the country has left lawmakers and advocates with a number of unanswered questions as time dwindles amid the U.S. withdrawal.

The White House confirmed Thursday it would evacuate former interpreters, drivers and others along with their families to third countries to shield them from danger in Afghanistan while completing what can be a years-long process of reviewing applications for so-called Special Immigration Visas (SIVs).

But even those who have pushed the administration to execute that massive-scale evacuation say officials have been short on details about when, where and how it will take place.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There are many outstanding questions, including which applicants would be prioritized for evacuation, how we would get them out of the country, where we would send them, how much it would cost and where the money to come from, just to name a few. And that doesn’t even mention the clock that is ticking on our time on the ground,” House Foreign Affairs Committee ranking member Michael McCaulMichael Thomas McCaulBiden administration to evacuate Afghans who helped US Sullivan says US preparing more Russia sanctions over Navalny House votes to repeal 2002 Iraq war powers MORE (R-Texas) said in a statement to The Hill.

“I appreciate the Biden Administration’s intention to evacuate as many SIV applicants as possible – which I have been calling them to do for months – but that doesn’t mean much until they put words to action. They need to start answering some of these basic questions if we are to believe they will actually follow through,” he added.

White House press secretary Jen PsakiJen PsakiOvernight Finance: Republicans warn Biden over infrastructure deal | White House pushes back on criticism | Biden phones Sinema | Consumer spending flat in May, personal incomes drop White House: ‘Absurd’ for GOP to take issue with dual-track infrastructure approach The Hill’s 12:30 Report – Presented by Facebook – Biden helps negotiate bipartisan infrastructure deal MORE said Friday that a group of SIV applicants will be relocated before the withdrawal is officially completed in September but declined to provide specific details such as where they will be sent or how many people will be evacuated.

“Some of this we’re not going to be able to outline for security reasons,” she said.

Since the Biden administration announced plans to withdraw from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, it has faced calls to speed processing of the 18,000 Afghans who have already applied for SIVs along with another 53,000 family members seeking to accompany them to the U.S.

But the urgency of those calls has escalated as the military looks likely to largely wrap-up its withdrawal in July — and amid U.S. intelligence agency reports that Afghanistan’s current government could fall to the Taliban in as little as six months once America leaves.

ADVERTISEMENT

Further complicating the issue, Afghanistan is in the midst of a devastating COVID-19 wave that prompted the U.S. Embassy in Kabul to lock down and suspend visa processing.

Experts are worried the lack of military presence could hinder the evacuation, particularly if the withdrawal takes away the option of moving Afghans on military planes.

And immigration advocates are pressing the government to send evacuated Afghans to a U.S. territory such as Guam, fearful they could spend years in limbo in a third country while their applications are processed with little recourse or access to the U.S. asylum system if they are denied.

The 14-point application process can take as long as 800 days to process, and Sunil Varghese, policy director of the International Refugee Assistance Project, said SIV seekers are often held up as the government works to verify employment — an effort complicated by factors including poor record keeping throughout the war and even kidnapping of people’s former supervisors.

“There’s a big question as to what happens to someone who is evacuated and then stuck in this years-long process, and what happens if they’re denied in error or forced to reapply,” Varghese said.

“If they’re in American territory they have access to humanitarian protections through immigration court or elsewhere where there are other protection pathways,” he added, including applying for asylum. “We don’t know what that looks like if they are taken to a third country.”

Guam has a history of accepting evacuees, taking in 130,000 Vietnamese in 1975 and 6,600 Iraqis in 1996.

“It’s quick; it’s one international flight; it has the infrastructure; it has the historical knowledge to do this, and frankly there is a lot of access to legal resources Afghans are going to need,” said Chris Purdy, program manager of Veterans for American Ideals at Human Rights First.

Lawmakers from both parties have also been pushing the so-called “Guam Option.”

Rep. Seth MoultonSeth MoultonBiden administration to evacuate Afghans who helped US Ocasio-Cortez, Gillibrand and Moulton call for more high-speed rail funding in infrastructure package America must keep its promise to Afghan translators MORE (D-Mass.), a Marine Corps veteran who has been advocating for sending Afghan interpreters to Guam, praised the decision to evacuate them, but said “it is far from the final chapter” and called on the administration to release a detailed plan.

“It’s clearly long overdue today, so we need to start immediately, and we have not yet seen a timeline from the administration,” Moulton said at a news conference Thursday.

Asked Friday if the congressman was briefed on any more details since his comments, his office told The Hill it had yet to see a “detailed operational plan.”

U.S. military officers have stressed that American forces have the capability to evacuate Afghans if ordered to, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark MilleyMark MilleyTrump aides drafted order to invoke Insurrection Act during Floyd protests: report Overnight Defense: Intel releases highly anticipated UFO report | Biden meets with Afghan president | Conservatives lash out at Milley Tucker Carlson calls Joint Chiefs chairman a ‘pig,’ ‘stupid’ MORE telling lawmakers this week that “we are prepared to execute whatever we are directed” and that he considers it a “moral imperative” to help the Afghan allies.

But the Pentagon had few details on the evacuation Thursday and suggested U.S. military assets may not end up being used.

“Not all such evacuation operations require military aircraft to conduct,” Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said at a briefing. “It’s not like we haven’t done this before using chartered aircraft, commercially leased aircraft or contracted aircraft.”

Stressing that the State Department is in the lead on the initiative and that planning is still underway, Kirby also did not have answers on how many Afghans will be relocated, where they will go, cost estimates, a timeline or whether the Pentagon would provide supplies such as food and water to care for the evacuees.

“We understand that for many of them there is a physical risk. We’re mindful of that,” he said. “We’re mindful of the uncertainty that many of them have about their own futures. We are also mindful of our obligation, our responsibility to try to help them to the degree we can. And we’re doing that, and we’re working on that very hard.”

Advocates have estimated that if the U.S. relies on chartered flights for the evacuation it would need to run four or five 300-person flights per day in order to evacuate 70,000 people before the Sept. 11 withdrawal deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

But beyond flights, experts fear deteriorating conditions across the country will become even more dangerous for evacuees without a U.S. military presence.

“The safety situation in Afghanistan is deteriorating rapidly. The reports coming out of the country is that the Taliban is taking over huge swaths of the country, especially in the north, and preventing escape routes,” Varghese said.

“You’re forcing the applicant to carry all this proof with them that they worked for us, which in itself is dangerous,” he added.

Lawmakers have for months been calling on the State Department to speed visa processing, introducing bills to cut some red tape and add anywhere from 4,000 to 20,000 visas to the program.

Sen. Angus KingAngus KingThe Hill’s 12:30 Report – Presented by Facebook – Biden helps negotiate bipartisan infrastructure deal Democrats hit wall on voting rights push Centrists gain foothold in infrastructure talks; cyber attacks at center of Biden-Putin meeting MORE (I-Maine) on the Senate floor Thursday called for a paperwork surge, noting the disparity in the hundreds of days it takes to process a visa versus the 90 remaining days the U.S. will remain in Afghanistan.

“There’s a mismatch there. We’ve got to take steps to protect these people,” he said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“The Taliban has made no secret of the fact that they are in grave danger,” King added. “They have already started killing them. If we leave without providing for the safety of those people, providing them a way to maintain their lives, it will be a stain on this country that will exist for generations.”

Advocates have similarly echoed frustration, confused by why a plan to evacuate those who assisted the U.S. is coming so late in the process.

Click Here: vodacom bulls rugby jersey

“Why did you wait so long? Why wasn’t this part of the plan for the withdrawal?” Purdy asked.

“That’s just a question that — it weighs on a lot of us in this community. We’ve been saying this for the last four months, and it’s been crickets.”

A recently released NXT wrestler is coming to MLW.

During this week’s edition of MLW’s 2021 Open Draft, it was announced that EJ Nduka is coming to MLW. Nduka will make his MLW debut at the promotion’s Battle Riot tapings, which are being held at the 2300 Arena in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Saturday, July 10. The tapings mark the start of a new season for MLW. It will be the first MLW event with fans in attendance since March 2020.

Nduka was released by WWE last month as part of a round of NXT cuts. Nduka, a former football player and bodybuilder, had signed with WWE in August 2019. He used the name Ezra Judge in NXT but never made his television debut.

Click Here: north queensland cowboys jersey

Dave Meltzer wrote about Nduka when he was released by WWE:

The response we heard is people were shocked he was cut so there must be a story that wasn’t well known or something. His wrestling name was Ezra Judge but he never made it to NXT television. His lack of success also shows how much wrestling has changed because he would have had two months of training and been put in main events had he come along in the 80s. Think about this, he’s bigger than Lex Luger, a better athlete than Luger, better or the same body as Luger (Luger could have never won the contests he won) and Luger was spotted and was main eventing day one after weeks of training because that’s what they did with guys like that in the 80s.

Nduka is now using the nickname “The Judge.”

This round of the MLW Open Draft also included the announcements that Contra Unit and Bu Ku Dao will be returning for MLW’s new season.