Rep. Mike Kelly’s Office: There is No Law that Requires Separation of Children from Asylum Seeking Families

UPDATE: On the 15th I received a letter from Mike Kelly’s office in response to an email I sent asking the same questions as in this post. See the letter here.

……………..

Today, White House spokesperson Sarah Huckabee Sanders repeated Donald Trump’s false claim that there is a law that requires children be removed from their asylum seeking parents at the U.S. border. Watch:

Because I couldn’t find a law nor has anyone supporting the policy cited a specific law, I called my representative Mike Kelly (R-PA). The fellow who answered the phone (I didn’t get his name) said he would help me find that law. As he searched for it, he engaged in a bit of discussion with me about people illegally crossing the border. However, my question was about those presenting for asylum with children together as a family.

After searching and talking for about 10 minutes, Rep. Kelly’s staffer concluded that there is no law requiring the separation of children from their parents. He indicated that the practice fell within the jurisdiction of the border agencies and immigration officials and ultimately the Trump administration.

Thus, according to the office of my Trump supporting Republican representative, President Trump and Sarah Huckabee Sanders are deceiving the American people by saying there is a law which they are simply enforcing. 

How low can Sanders and company go? Today she invoked the Bible after Jeff Sessions also did to justify this awful policy. Watch the video above to the end.

In one way, I am glad that Kelly’s office acknowledged that there is no law requiring the Trump administration policy. However, on the other hand, it is discouraging to know that Rep. Kelly must silently know that the story being sold to the American people is false.

Trump Says Nuclear Threat is Over; North Korea Experts Skeptical

A former foreign service officer who served in North Korea while Kim Jong-Un’s father ruled is skeptical of President Trump’s claim that “there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.” David Lambertson who worked as American liaison to the Korean Economic Development Organization in North Korea told me that the threat is over only in Trump’s “imagination.”

Early yesterday, President Trump congratulated himself in this tweet:

Lambertson spent five years as a part-time KEDO representative and was also an ambassador to Thailand during his career. He was in North Korea as a part of the project negotiated during the Clinton administration with Kim Jong-Il, the father of Kim Jong-Un. In exchange for a promise of halting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, a consortium of nations agreed to build a nuclear power plant in North Korea. Eventually, the project ended without a completed plant and without the promises being kept by North Korea.

Lambertson told me that Trump returned from his summit with Kim Jong-Un “with very little of substance to show us.” Moreover, Trump gave up a couple of “substantive points, namely the halt to ‘provocative war games,’ and simply the elevation to world statesman of the world’s worst dictator.”

Making a comparison to the Iran treaty, Lambertson said that the meeting was “the beginning of a ‘process,’ we are told–one that will bear close watching.”  He added that “every milestone along the way needs to be looked at carefully and skeptically.”

Lambertson said “we should be thankful” that “tensions with North Korea are lower than they were” but added, “until there is actual, verifiable progress toward denuclearization, we should keep our enthusiasm under control, despite Trump’s bloviating.”

Lambertson concluded:

The North Korean nuclear threat has not disappeared, except perhaps in the President’s imagination.

Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations concurs with Lambertson:

Since Trump has returned from Singapore, he has praised Kim Jong-Un as a ruler who loves his people. This of course will come as a surprise to the people of North Korea.

Donald Trump Pledges to Pardon Dinesh D’Souza

In today’s Corruption Watch News, I bring you this:

Dinesh D’Souza pleaded guilty to making illegal campaign contributions. Now Trump will pardon him.

Reaction has been swift and severe, as it should be.

Former Director of the Office of Government Ethics Walter Shaub thinks the pardon might be a signal to Trump’s former associates now under indictment.

Law professor Joyce Alene agrees:

At the time, D’Souza admitted he committed the crime, saying

I knew that causing a campaign contribution to be made in the name of another was wrong and something the law forbids. I deeply regret my conduct.

He asked two other people to make contributions to the U.S. Senate campaign of Wendy Long which he promised to reimburse. He admitted he reimbursed those individuals.

D’Souza identifies as an evangelical and he is fiercely pro-Trump. Although he has been losing his luster as an evangelical intellectual since 2010, he is admired in pro-Trump circles.

Recently, he has become known for his incendiary remarks and fractured history. D’Souza has sparred with historian Kevin Kruse over political history (Kruse for the win). He supported Roy Moore for Senate and generally comes across as a bomb thrower.

Pro-Putin

D’Souza is also pro-Putin. He once tweeted his admiration of the Russian strongman.

D’Souza didn’t like my post about it so he did what any Trump supporter would do, he made fun of me and doubled down.

Great Victory?

Even though D’Souza admitted breaking campaign finance laws, he is celebrating as if he was the victim of a false accusation.

For some reason, Christians are celebrating this pardon. I understand we are all guilty of various things and in Christ, we are pardoned but our rejoicing isn’t to be gloating over others. The prosecutors did their jobs and the precious rule of law that Republicans go on about has been set aside. I agree with the first tweeter above, this appears to be an abuse of power and if Karma is indeed a bitch, there may be a day of reckoning in November.

Trump Really Thought it Through

There are no words to describe the lunacy of how Trump decided to pardon D’Souza.

Tony Perkins: Christianity is Great Except When It Isn't

The title of this post summarizes what I get out of this Tony Perkins interview with Politico. Tony Perkins is the head of the Family Research Trump court evangelical picCouncil which claims to promote family values. Because FRC has historically called for politicians to exemplify family values, Perkins gets a lot of questions about his support for Trump.  This exchange between Perkins and reporter Edward-Isaac Dovere  is especially revealing:

Evangelical Christians, says Perkins, “were tired of being kicked around by Barack Obama and his leftists. And I think they are finally glad that there’s somebody on the playground that is willing to punch the bully.”
What happened to turning the other cheek? I ask.
“You know, you only have two cheeks,” Perkins says. “Look, Christianity is not all about being a welcome mat which people can just stomp their feet on.”

Shorter Perkins: when Christian teachings don’t get you want you want, then try something else. As I understand Perkins here, there is a limit to Christianity. You can follow it so far, but when it doesn’t work to get power in the situation, you resort to whatever tactics might be necessary. Otherwise, the unthinkable might happen: Christians might lose political power.

Christianity? What Christianity?

To me, this is another example of an evangelical leader changing Christianity to fit the requirements of being a Trump follower. Today, it is Perkins; often it is Franklin Graham, most days it is Jerry Falwell, everyone’s favorite fallen angel. After Trump’s indecorous reflections on third world nations earlier this month, Jerry Falwell went out with an defense – Trump was being presidentially authentic.  Columnist Jonah Goldberg was having none of that.

Falwell, in a riot of sycophantic sophistry, not only wants to argue that whatever a president does is presidential but also seeks to elevate the idea that authenticity is its own reward. This is contrary to vast swathes of conservative and Christian thought. A person can be authentically evil, crude, bigoted, or asinine. That is not a defense of any of those things. I’m no expert, but my understanding of Christianity is that behavior is supposed to be informed by more than one’s “authentic” feelings and instincts. Satan is nothing if not authentic.

We live in a time when some of our Christian leaders model how Christian leaders act when they believe Christianity has failed as a practical matter. “You know, you only have two cheeks,” Perkins said. Once you’ve turned both of them, it must be time to move on to some other approach.
And nearly every day, we see evidence that they have moved on.

Trump Religious Advisor Robert Jeffress: Nothing Racist About Restricting Immigration by Race

Trying to defend President Donald Trump’s comments preferring immigrants from Norway over Haiti, El Salvador and Africa, First Baptist Church of Dallas pastor Robert Jeffress told the Washington Post that race is an acceptable reason for the government to discriminate in immigration.
According to reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey, Jeffress told her that the U.S. has the right “to restrict immigration according to whatever criteria it establishes, including race or other qualifications.” He claimed that there isn’t anything racist about such restrictions.* I would like to hear an explanation for that. What else besides racial prejudice would lead the U.S. to prefer whites over non-whites? I would like to hear Rev. Jeffress’ answer to that question.
Jeffress’ blatant defense of racial discrimination is reminiscent of opposition by other Southern white men to the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act. INA struck down immigration quotas and increased immigration from Africa, Latin America and Asia. INA was opposed by those who wanted to maintain discrimination in immigration policy. Essentially, the policy prior to 1965 favored European immigration with limits on people coming in from elsewhere in the world. Now in 2018, Trump’s preference for white Norwegians over dark skinned Africans and Jeffress’ defense of his position sound like the same rhetoric used by opponents of the INA in 1965.
One of the most vocal opponents of INA was Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC). During Senate hearings on the bill, Ervin expressed that race and country of origin should be used in immigration discrimination. Ervin said:

The people of Ethiopia have the same right to come to the United States under this bill as the people from England, the people of France, the people of Germany, the people of Holland. With all due respect to Ethiopia, I don’t know of any contributions that Ethiopia has made to the making of America.

He wasn’t alone in his views.
As Tom Gjelten documents in his book A Nation of Nations, Spessard Hollard (D-FL) asked during debate on the bill:

Why, for the first time, are the emerging nations of Africa, to be placed on the same basis as are our mother countries – Britain, Germany, Scandinavian nations, France, and the other nations from which most Americans have come?

Without the profanity, Ervin and Spessard raised the same questions in 1965 as Trump and Jeffress are raising now. Why do we want these people from Africa? We should have more people from Europe.

Blinded by the White

A sign of white privilege is the distortion of reality it promotes. Ervin and Spessard seemed oblivious to the fact that citizens in their states had African heritage. As Gjelten points out in his book, “In the 1960 census, Americans of African descent out-numbered Scandinavian Americans by a margin of two and a half to one, and there were more African-Americans in the United States than there were Americans whose origins lay in Italy, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and Switzerland combined.”
Apparently, as Gjelten notes, Ervin and Spessard didn’t consider African nations as “mother countries.” Of course, that is absurd. One would have to look at U.S. history through the lens of white privilege to think people with African heritage have made no contributions to American life and culture.
Some of Trump’s defenders have said Trump just said what some people are thinking when he expressed his preference for Norwegians over people

Robert Jeffress - from Twitter page
Robert Jeffress – from Twitter page

from “shithole” countries. Perhaps some white people are thinking those things, but a look at the history of the Civil Rights struggle shows that some people always have. In the 1960s, those views were shown the door legislatively. Now they are front and center in the White House, with evangelical religious leaders to defend them.
As a religious advisor to the president, Jeffress claims that the United States has the right to engage in racial discrimination in immigration policy. His evangelical peers should not let that stand without condemnation. Racial discrimination was evil in 1965 and it is evil now, wherever it occurs. There is no national interest in that kind of evil.
Tomorrow we remember Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legacy. King, Jr. lamented the silence of the white church during the fight for civil rights. The church should not be silent now.
 
*I confirmed this conversation with Washington Post reporter Sarah Pulliam Bailey. Jeffress told Bailey that the United States has the right to restrict immigration according to whatever criteria it establishes. She then asked him, “Would you include race?” He said, “Whatever criteria we deem necessary.” She asked him a direct question about race which he agreed to.

Evangelical Reaction to Trump's Shithole Comments

I don’t even know if I am allowed to write that at Patheos. I guess we will find out.
By now, most of my readers will have heard that Donald Trump yesterday expressed preference for Norwegian immigrants over Haitian andTrump court evangelical pic African immigrants. The original report came from Josh Dawsey in the Washington Post. When discussing immigrants from El Salvador, Haiti and Africa, Trump reportedly said, “Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” According to the Post and Reuters, he then said we should take more immigrants from Norway.
Earlier today he denied saying those words, but Senator Dick Durbin — who was in the meeting — confirmed that he said those words and more. Others in the meeting have confirmed it and White House staff have not denied it.

Evangelical Response

Court evangelical and Southern Baptist pastor Robert Jeffress came out in Trump’s defense.
Jemar Tisby Tweeted his test for consistency.


National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference President Samuel Rodriguez came out with a mildly critical statement this evening.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Rev. Dr. Samuel Rodriguez, President of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, issues the following statement:
“Every single person is created in the image of God. Without exception. Therefore, as it pertains to immigration, we must provide a legal avenue, with rigorous vetting, that enables individuals from both Norway and Nigeria, from Holland and Haiti, to come to our nation if they embrace our values, commit to self-reliance and to enriching our collective American experience.
“In addition, and with great due deference, I believe that the comments attributed to our president can best be described as wrong, inappropriate, and hurtful. Why? Because when God looks at these nations, He sees His children.”
###
Rev. Samuel Rodriguez is president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, executive producer of The Impossible with 20th Century Fox, and bestselling author of “Be Light.” He has been named by CNN and Fox News as “the leader of the Hispanic Evangelical movement” and TIME Magazine nominated him among the 100 most influential leaders in America.
The National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference is recognized and identified by Time Magazine, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Christianity Today, Charisma Magazine, NBC, Telemundo, Univision, Fox News, CNN, and a number of additional media outlets, publications, and periodicals as America’s largest and most influential Hispanic/Latino Christian organization with 40,118 certified member churches in the United States and chapters in Latin America.

President of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention Russell Moore tweeted a comment which can only be taken as opposition to the president’s comment.


Sarah Pulliam Bailey has an article at WaPo on evangelical reaction. It looks like Samuel Rodriguez’s views evolved through the day.
 
Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer biographer Eric Metaxas just can’t bring himself to find fault with Trump. I just can’t imagine Bonhoeffer reacting this way.


He doesn’t seem to understand why his fans are upset with him.


Author Gregory Thornbury simplifies things for Mr. Metaxas.


Thabiti Anyabwile at The Gospel Coalition takes a negative view of Trump’s comments. He talks about his immigrant family. A quote:

On the drive home from our family meeting last night, I learned that in the Oval Office, that hallowed ground of American political power and aspiration, President Trump reportedly made racist and troublesome comments regarding immigrants and their countries of origin. My family.
I’m a pastor, not a politician. But I am a pastor of particular people with diverse and rich backgrounds. They contribute to our church family in indescribable ways. They are our church family. My job is to shepherd them, which means I am to feed them, lead them, and protect them.
As a shepherd, I cannot abide the comments our President makes regarding immigrant peoples and their countries of origin. I cannot leave them alone to hear racist barbs, evil speech, incendiary comment, and blasphemous slander against the image and likeness of God in which they are made.

Ed Stetzer has a nice column on the comments at Washington Post.
I will add reaction as I find it.

Many Questions Unanswered About the Future of Evidence-Based Policy at SAMHSA (UPDATED)

UPDATE (1/12/18) – Last night, SAMHSA Asst. Secretary Elinore McCance-Katz released a statement about the termination of NREPP.  The full statement is at the link and the end of this post. She also held a brief conference call with reporters. Although I wasn’t on it, I communicated with two people on the call. On the call and in her written statement, Dr. McCance-Katz criticized the NREPP. On the call, she was quoted by a reporter on the call as saying, “We in the Trump administration are not going to sit back and let people die,” she said, which will happen “if we leave things up on the website that don’t help people.”
There still is no time table for the implementation of the Policy Lab or any new approach. The statement is light on specifics. When I ask about when and how this is going to happen, I have gotten no responses. I hope to have another post later today with reactions to the Asst. Secretary’s remarks and am holding out hope that SAMHSA might address the issues of timing and implementation.
………………………………..
(Original post begins here)
One thing is clear. The National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices contract has been terminated. SAMHSA’s statement about the registry first posted here on this blog is now on the NREPP website (see the statement in red below):
NREPP SAMHSA statement

What Now?

In one form or another, the question on the minds of many mental health researchers and advocates is “what now?” After I received the statement above on 1/8, I asked a SAMHSA spokesman when researchers would be able to submit programs or update new programs. There has been no answer. It appears that SAMHSA discontinued NREPP even though the agency is not prepared to “reconfigure its approach” to evidence-based practice. Thus far, something is being replaced by nothing.
Media accounts of NREPP’s demise reflect the reaction of the mental health community. The Week‘s headline this morning reads, “Trump officials froze a federal database of addiction and mental health treatments. Nobody’s sure why.
On Tuesday, Think Progress led with “Without warning, the government just ended a registry of mental illness and drug abuse programs.” The subtitle? “And didn’t bother to warn program participants ahead of time.”
Yesterday, the Boston Globe‘s health news service Stat began:

The Trump administration has abruptly halted work on a highly regarded program to help physicians, families, state and local government agencies, and others separate effective “evidence-based” treatments for substance abuse and behavioral health problems from worthless interventions.

Also out this morning, the Washington Post covers much of the same ground but provides no details from SAMHSA about when the new process will begin.
I say again, SAMHSA replaced something with nothing and did so in the middle of an addiction epidemic.

Rep. Grace Meng Wants to Know What’s Going On with NREPP

Rep. Grace Meng represents the Sixth District of New York and is a member of the House Appropriations Committee. On January 5, unaware of the impending controversy over NREPP, she wrote SAMHSA to praise NREPP and ask how she could help support the registry. She closed her letter by saying,

Again, thank you for the NREPP.  I feel that the registry and its website are crucial public health tools.  Respectfully, I wish to know how you will grow the NREPP and its website, how you intend to review more opioid abuse-specific programs, and how I may be of help to you in these endeavors.

When Rep. Meng learned about the NREPP’s termination, she followed up with another letter on January 8 requesting the answers to several questions. The first question was “Why, with specificity, was this contract terminated?” That was followed by nine additional questions:
Meng question NREPP
These are good questions. I would add, why did SAMHSA terminate NREPP when it appears that SAMHSA doesn’t have another evidence-based process ready to go?
 
For background, see my first post on the termination of NREPP.
…………..
Statement of Elinore F. McCance-Katz, MD, PhD, Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use regarding the National Registry of Evidence Programs and Practices and SAMHSA’s new approach to implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs)
Thursday, January 11, 2018
SAMHSA and HHS are committed to advancing the use of science, in the form of data and evidence-based policies, programs and practices, to improve the lives of Americans living with substance use disorders and mental illness and of their families.
People throughout the United States are dying every day from substance use disorders and from serious mental illnesses. The situation regarding opioid addiction and serious mental illness is urgent, and we must attend to the needs of the American people. SAMHSA remains committed to promoting effective treatment options for the people we serve, because we know people can recover when they receive appropriate services.
SAMHSA has used the National Registry of Evidence Programs and Practices (NREPP) since 1997. For the majority of its existence, NREPP vetted practices and programs submitted by outside developers – resulting in a skewed presentation of evidence-based interventions, which did not address the spectrum of needs of those living with serious mental illness and substance use disorders. These needs include screening, evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, psychotherapies, psychosocial supports and recovery services in the community.
The program as currently configured often produces few to no results, when such common search terms as “medication-assisted treatment” or illnesses such as ”schizophrenia” are entered. There is a complete lack of a linkage between all of the EBPs that are necessary to provide effective care and treatment to those living with mental and substance use disorders, as well. If someone with limited knowledge about various mental and substance use disorders were to go to the NREPP website, they could come away thinking that there are virtually no EBPs for opioid use disorder and other major mental disorders – which is completely untrue.
They would have to try to discern which of the listed practices might be useful, but could not rely on the grading for the listed interventions; neither would there be any way for them to know which interventions were more effective than others.
We at SAMHSA should not be encouraging providers to use NREPP to obtain EBPs, given the flawed nature of this system. From my limited review – I have not looked at every listed program or practice – I see EBPs that are entirely irrelevant to some disorders, “evidence” based on review of as few as a single publication that might be quite old and, too often, evidence review from someone’s dissertation.
This is a poor approach to the determination of EBPs. As I mentioned, NREPP has mainly reviewed submissions from “developers” in the field. By definition, these are not EBPs because they are limited to the work of a single person or group. This is a biased, self-selected series of interventions further hampered by a poor search-term system. Americans living with these serious illnesses deserve better, and SAMHSA can now provide that necessary guidance to communities.
We are now moving to EBP implementation efforts through targeted technical assistance and training that makes use of local and national experts and will that assist programs with actually implementing services that will be essential to getting Americans living with these disorders the care and treatment and recovery services that they need.
These services are designed to provide EBPs appropriate to the communities seeking assistance, and the services will cover the spectrum of individual and community needs including prevention interventions, treatment and community recovery services.
We must do this now. We must not waste time continuing a program that has had since 1997 to show its effectiveness.
But yet we know that the majority of behavioral health programs still do not use EBPs: one indicator being the lack of medication-assisted treatment, the accepted, life-saving standard of care for opioid use disorder, in specialty substance use disorder programs nationwide.
SAMHSA will use its technical assistance and training resources, its expert resources, the resources of our sister agencies at the Department of Health and Human Services, and national stakeholders who are consulted for EBPs to inform American communities and to get Americans living with these disorders the resources that they deserve.

Trump Administration Halts Contracted Work on NREPP and Shifts Evidence-Based Focus to SAMHSA's Policy Lab (UPDATED)

UPDATE (1/8/2018) – This morning, I received this statement from a SAMHSA spokesman:

Although the current NREPP contract has been discontinued, SAMHSA is very focused on the development and implementation of evidence-based programs in communities across the nation.  SAMHSA’s Policy Lab will lead the effort to reconfigure its approach to identifying and disseminating evidence-based practice and programs.

The Policy Lab is referred to on SAMHSA’s website and is led by Christopher Jones. The Policy Lab was created by the 21st Century Cures Act and is an evolution of SAMHSA’s Office of Policy, Planning and Innovation. Clearly, the issue with the change from NREPP isn’t with the term “evidence-based” since the above statement uses the term and the Cures Act requires evidence-based interventions. For the exact language of the Cures statute, scroll to the end of this post.
——————-
(original post starts here)
Yesterday (Jan 4, 2018), a contractor for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration alerted program participants that funding for work onnrepp the National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs & Practices had been terminated “for the convenience of the government.” According to a source with the contractor, the work was not terminated due to any problems with their work but because the administration did not want to continue it. According to my source, this action follows a freeze in the work which had been in effect since September, 2017.
The NREPP is an effort to alert the public and professional community about evidence-based practices in mental health treatment and prevention. According to SAMHSA’s 2018 budget justification, NREPP helps meet the requirements of the 21st Century Cures Act which requires the government to provide accurate information about what works in the treatment of mental illness and drug/alcohol addiction. SAMHSA is responsible to post this information on an agency website. SAMHSA requested $2.8-million in FY 2018 for NREPP.
According to an email I obtained which was later posted on Twitter by someone else, Development Services Group alerted their constituents that their contract to manage the NREPP’s contents and website had been terminated on December 28, 2017.
The email stated:

It is with great regret that we write to inform you that on December 28, 2017, we received notification from SAMHSA that the NREPP contract is being terminated for the convenience of the government.
This cancellation means that we can no longer make any updates to your program profile. We thank you for the help and cooperation you gave so that we could complete your review.
We are deeply saddened by the government’s sudden decision to end the NREPP contract, under which we have been able to provide and strengthen science-based information about mental health and substance use treatment and prevention programs, both nationally and internationally.
All comments and concerns should be directed to NREPP@SAMHSA.hhs.gov

According to DSG, it isn’t clear what will become of NREPP. The reason the process of evaluating programs was given to a contractor was because SAMHSA did not have a sufficient number of staff to do the job. The website may remain but at present no additional guidance has come from SAMHSA. According to DSG, all materials are being returned to the government and not sent to another contractor.
My calls and emails to SAMHSA have not been returned.
It isn’t clear how SAMHSA will meet the mandates of the Cures Act without a functioning evidence-based program. Another open question is why the program was halted in the middle of the fiscal year without cause (“for the convenience of the government”).
(Updates will be added to this posts through the day)
——————
The entire text of the 21st Century Cures Act is here. For the section relevant to the Policy Laboratory and the work on evidence based practices and programs, see below.

SEC. 7001. ENCOURAGING INNOVATION AND EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS.
    Title V of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 290aa et seq.)
is amended by inserting after section 501 (42 U.S.C. 290aa) the
following:
``SEC. 501A. <<NOTE: 42 USC 290aa-0.>>  NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH AND
                          SUBSTANCE USE POLICY LABORATORY.
    ``(a) In General.--There shall be established within the
Administration a National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy
Laboratory (referred to in this section as the `Laboratory').
    ``(b) Responsibilities.--The Laboratory shall--
            ``(1) continue to carry out the authorities and activities
        that were in effect for the Office of Policy, Planning, and
        Innovation as such Office existed prior to the date of enactment
        of the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Reform Act of
        2016;
            ``(2) identify, coordinate, and facilitate the
        implementation of policy changes likely to have a significant
        effect on mental health, mental illness, recovery supports, and
        the prevention and treatment of substance use disorder services;
            ``(3) work with the Center for Behavioral Health Statistics
        and Quality to collect, as appropriate, information from
        grantees under programs operated by the Administration in order
        to evaluate and disseminate information on evidence-based
        practices, including culturally and linguistically appropriate
        services, as appropriate, and service delivery models;
            ``(4) provide leadership in identifying and coordinating
        policies and programs, including evidence-based programs,
        related to mental and substance use disorders;
            ``(5) periodically review programs and activities operated
        by the Administration relating to the diagnosis or prevention
        of, treatment for, and recovery from, mental and substance use
        disorders to--
                    ``(A) identify any such programs or activities that
                are duplicative;
                    ``(B) identify any such programs or activities that
                are not evidence-based, effective, or efficient; and
                    ``(C) formulate recommendations for coordinating,
                eliminating, or improving programs or activities
                identified
[[Page 130 STAT. 1221]]
                under subparagraph (A) or (B) and merging such programs
                or activities into other successful programs or
                activities; and
            ``(6) carry out other activities as deemed necessary to
        continue to encourage innovation and disseminate evidence-based
        programs and practices.
    ``(c) Evidence-Based Practices and Service Delivery Models.--
            ``(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b)(3), the
        Laboratory--
                    ``(A) may give preference to models that improve--
                          ``(i) the coordination between mental health
                      and physical health providers;
                          ``(ii) the coordination among such providers
                      and the justice and corrections system; and
                          ``(iii) the cost effectiveness, quality,
                      effectiveness, and efficiency of health care
                      services furnished to adults with a serious mental
                      illness, children with a serious emotional
                      disturbance, or individuals in a mental health
                      crisis; and
                    ``(B) may include clinical protocols and practices
                that address the needs of individuals with early serious
                mental illness.
            ``(2) Consultation.--In carrying out this section, the
        Laboratory shall consult with--
                    ``(A) the Chief Medical Officer appointed under
                section 501(g);
                    ``(B) representatives of the National Institute of
                Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and
                the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism,
                on an ongoing basis;
                    ``(C) other appropriate Federal agencies;
                    ``(D) clinical and analytical experts with expertise
                in psychiatric medical care and clinical psychological
                care, health care management, education, corrections
                health care, and mental health court systems, as
                appropriate; and
                    ``(E) other individuals and agencies as determined
                appropriate by the Assistant Secretary.
    ``(d) Deadline for Beginning Implementation.--The Laboratory shall
begin implementation of this section not later than January 1, 2018.
    ``(e) Promoting Innovation.--
            ``(1) In general.--The Assistant Secretary, in coordination
        with the Laboratory, may award grants to States, local
        governments, Indian tribes or tribal organizations (as such
        terms are defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
        and Education Assistance Act), educational institutions, and
        nonprofit organizations to develop evidence-based interventions,
        including culturally and linguistically appropriate services, as
        appropriate, for--
                    ``(A) evaluating a model that has been
                scientifically demonstrated to show promise, but would
                benefit from further applied development, for--
[[Page 130 STAT. 1222]]
                          ``(i) enhancing the prevention, diagnosis,
                      intervention, and treatment of, and recovery from,
                      mental illness, serious emotional disturbances,
                      substance use disorders, and co-occurring illness
                      or disorders; or
                          ``(ii) integrating or coordinating physical
                      health services and mental and substance use
                      disorders services; and
                    ``(B) expanding, replicating, or scaling evidence-
                based programs across a wider area to enhance effective
                screening, early diagnosis, intervention, and treatment
                with respect to mental illness, serious mental illness,
                serious emotional disturbances, and substance use
                disorders, primarily by--
                          ``(i) applying such evidence-based programs to
                      the delivery of care, including by training staff
                      in effective evidence-based treatments; or
                          ``(ii) integrating such evidence-based
                      programs into models of care across specialties
                      and jurisdictions.

United States of Trump?

Believe it or not, this isn’t in Alabama.
The part of Western Pennsylvania where I live is a conservative place. Republicans outnumber Democrats and Trump did well here. Some people here like Trump so much they put up a flag with his name on it.
Trump flag clip
Instead of the American flag which Trump wants everybody to stand for, this Trump supporter has hoisted a banner for a little Trump worship.
As for me, I prefer the good old American flag and place my political hope in the genius of the founders who devised a system which I hope will weather the Trump storm and someday return sanity to the land.