Annmarie Soller | The Observer Abraham Lowenthal, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California and adjunct professor at Brown University, discusses the ideological differences between policymakers and scholars Tuesday evening in the Hesburgh Center for International Studies.In the field of international relations, a large gap exists between scholars and policymakers, and it is widening as policymakers demand black-and-white solutions and scholars become increasingly theoretical in their solutions, Lowenthal said.Policymakers see scholars as “absorbed and abstract” and “primarily interested in crafting theories … rather than in illuminating much less recommending solutions to pressing problems,” Lowenthal said. Scholars, on the other hand, “disdain the simplifications and lack of analytic rigor” of policymakers “interested in outcomes but not in understanding causality.”“It is fitting that I am here at this early stage because the purpose of the Keough School initiative and of this modest new book is exactly aligned,” Lowenthal said. “That is, to help develop stronger, more effective relations between scholars and policy makers with the aims both in improving policy and strengthening academic research and teaching.”Lowenthal referenced the creation of the first new college or school at the University in almost 100 years: the Donald R. Keough School of Global Affairs.“Developing more fruitful relations among scholars and policymakers is such an important and indeed such an obvious goal,” Lowenthal said. “But frankly, it has not been high on the agenda, either for most scholars or for most policymakers.”Michael Desch, chair of the department of political science, illustrated the evidence behind the “gaping chasm” between academics and politicians.“We did a one-of-a-kind survey of major national security decision makers … and asked them what of contemporary academic social science do you find useful in the process of actually making policy. And the answers were not encouraging. Not zero, but very little,” Desch said.Desch said he attributes the main causes of the widening gap between scholars and policymakers to two main factors: first, changes in government where research and advice on foreign policy is now done internally within the government bureaucracy and, second, the change in public opinion where the citizens view academics and scholars negatively.Professor Bartkus, associate professor of management, focused on the core aspect of rebuilding the bridge between scholars and policymakers. She said finding the common ground between scholars and policymakers does not entail a search for a place that already exists but rather envisioning and creating a shared space while having “the courage to take the first step.”“Of course, [creating that common ground is] not going to be easy because we’re going to keep talking past each other,” Bartkus said. “I have an entire class where my students talk past each other. The beginning of Business on the Front Lines, we had MBA students and Kroc students; they talk past each other every single class. Why? Because there’s a whole set of MBAs who are looking at the Kroc students going, ‘How are you even relevant?’ And the Kroc students are looking at the MBA students, ‘How are you not evil?’”“You have to put both of them against a really tough, substantive, important problem like rebuilding war-torn societies … for us to be forced to start having that kind of common language, common dialogue,” she said.Lowenthal praised Notre Dame for taking “a very big and welcome step to address this combination of problem and opportunity” with the creation of the Keough School of Global Affairs, and he said he hopes that his book can also contribute to the same goal by “helping to illuminate what needs to be done and how to achieve success in building better bridges between the scholarly and policy communities.” Tags: academia, Foreign Policy, Kellogg Institute, policymakers, political science, politicians In a panel hosted by the Kellogg Institute, Abraham F. Lowenthal, professor emeritus at the University of Southern California and adjunct professor at Brown University, discussed the launch of his new book on the waning relationship between scholars and policymakers today. Michael Desch, chair of the department of political science, and Viva Bartkus, associate professor of management, joined Lowenthal for discussion of policy and academia.
Editor’s Note: Throughout the 2016 presidential campaign, The Observer will sit down with Notre Dame experts to break down the election and its importance to students. In this second installment, News Writer Rachel O’Grady asks Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science Vincent Phillip Muñoz about the upcoming primaries and the biggest issues of the campaign.Rachel O’Grady: With the Iowa caucuses just a few days away and New Hampshire not long after, what should we be looking for as the results come in?Professor Muñoz: I suppose the number one question for the Republican primary is: Do Trump supporters actually turn out to vote? If they don’t, the Donald might be in for a quick fall. Or perhaps that’s just my wishful thinking. For the Democrats: Can Bernie Sanders actually win one of the early states and, if he does, can he transform that victory into a perception that he could actually defeat Clinton? And if Trump and Sanders win in Iowa and New Hampshire, expect lots of talk about a third party challenger mounting a run — Bloomberg?ROG: The average age of Supreme Court justices right now is 75, so it is likely our next president will have at least one Supreme Court nominee. How does that play into the primary and, more importantly, the general election?VPM: Given the blockbuster cases that have been or will be decided before November, I expect we will hear quite a bit about the Supreme Court and the type of justice each candidate would appoint. Perhaps it’s because it’s still relatively early, but I’m surprised we have not heard more about how a Cruz presidency coupled with a Republican Senate might actually lead to a reversal of the Court’s decision to protect same-sex marriage. That’s a long shot for any number of reasons, but given that Justice Ginsburg is 82 and Justice Breyer is 77, it’s not out of the question. And if Hillary Clinton were to win and Justice Scalia were to leave the Court (he is 79), the Court would surely move to the left, likely ensuring another generation of constitutional protection for abortion.ROG: There are a number of important Supreme Court decisions that have happened under the Obama administration, many of which Republicans have called unconstitutional, and we’re hearing a lot about it during the debates. Does this end up being a long-term issue?VPM: Supreme Court decisions are almost always a long-term issue, which is one of the reasons why they are so important.ROG: In your research and opinion, what do you think will be the most important issue in the general election?VPM: President Obama’s reelection in 2012 was the first time in my political lifetime (thankfully, I’m too young to remember Jimmy Carter) that the country elected a progressive president. In 2008, Obama presented himself as “post-partisan,” but that wasn’t possible or plausible in 2012. In November, we will find out if the country wants to continue down a progressive path.ROG: Taking it back to college campuses, particularly here at Notre Dame, what issues do you think students need to be paying attention to in the coming months?VPM: Since gay rights and religious freedom (not to mention free speech, affirmative action and campaign finance reform) are significantly impacted by the judiciary, understanding the type of judges and Supreme Court justices a candidate would appoint is critically important if one wants to vote intelligently on these issues. This, of course, is one of the reasons we started the Constitutional Studies Minor.Tags: 2016 Election Observer, 2016 presidential campaign, primary elections, Supreme Court
David Bertioli, a world-class expert in the genetics and genomics of peanut species, will join the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences as a professor and the university’s first Georgia Research Alliance (GRA) Distinguished Investigator.”We are so pleased to have David join us as a Georgia Research Alliance Distinguished Investigator,” said Sam Pardue, dean and director of the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. “His research will be an important element in continuing UGA’s tradition of excellence in plant breeding and genomics.”Bertioli will join the UGA Institute for Plant Breeding, Genetics and Genomics, which is home to some of the most respected plant genetics experts in the world. He will lead research important to Georgia’s $600 million peanut industry. “We are fortunate in Georgia to have strong support from the Georgia Research Alliance, the Georgia Seed Development Commission, the Peanut Foundation, the National Peanut Board, the American Peanut Shellers, the Georgia Peanut Commission, Mars, Inc., and the J.M. Smucker Company to help recruit Dr. Bertioli to our faculty,” Pardue said. “This valuable partnership shows the commitment to and importance of UGA’s agricultural research programs.”The genetics and genomics of wild peanut relatives are a primary focus of Bertioli’s work. His goal is to use valuable genetic traits found in wild species to improve cultivated peanuts so they require fewer inputs and are more sustainable and profitable for producers in Georgia and around the world. He will focus on increasing the resistance of the peanut to pests and diseases.“David’s work on the use of traits from the wild relatives will have a major economic impact on Georgia growers, and we look forward to his contribution to the training of the next generation of scientists at UGA,” said Scott Jackson, a GRA Eminent Scholar in plant functional genomics and director of the Center for Applied Genetic Technologies in the UGA College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences.Bertioli came to UGA in 2013 as a visiting professor on leave from the University of Brasilia in Brazil. His cutting-edge, practical work consistently receives financial support from commodity groups, nonprofits, for-profit companies and federal agencies. He works closely with Jackson at UGA’s campuses in Athens and Tifton, Georgia. Bertioli received his formal training in England, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in botany from Durham University and a doctorate from Oxford University. He has served as a professor at the University of Brasilia since 2009. From 2009 to 2012, he was a Fellow of the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. In 2003, he was a visiting scientist at the Sainsbury Laboratory at the John Innes Center in Norwich, England.“We are proud to welcome David to Georgia,” said Susan Shows, GRA senior vice president. “His expertise will be a unique asset to the UGA team and we are excited to see how they can expand their research portfolio.”
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York By the close of business on the first quarter of 2014, the Toyota Corolla rolled in as the best-selling car in the world.Again.The Corolla has held this title for years.Here’s why:While the Corolla will never be billed as the flashiest car on the market, it has proven to be dependable in its simplicity, easy to drive, and affordable. For a compact car, it’s surprisingly roomy, seating four comfortably. Reviewers note that the Corolla accommodates taller passengers with ample legroom in the back and spacious front seats.U.S. News Best Cars notes that the interior is quite impressive. The Entune infotainment system is easy to use and superior for its class. Bluetooth, a USB port, auxiliary audio jack and steering wheel mounted audio controls are all standard features. Optional features include a backup camera, cruise control, keyless entry and moon roof.Toyota is advertising the Corolla’s tech features as “dope tech,” noting its tech audio with iPod connectivity, hands-free phone capability, and music streaming via Bluetooth. Dope, indeed.Click here to learn more about NY Auto GiantAutomobile Magazine praised the latest incarnation of the Corolla for its roomy interior: “This is the kind of thing that should appeal to all buyers of compact-size cars, as they look for the comfort and convenience of a Toyota Camry-size car in a more affordable package.”Car review site Autoblog agrees, stating the 2014 Corolla “is actually a whole lot nicer than its predecessor.” They praised it for being safe, reliable, and for getting good fuel economy.Who is the vehicle good for? This is a commuter car. It isn’t flashy or fancy. But it will be your best friend. It will be there for you, day after day. You can depend on your Corolla as your drive to work and back. It won’t cost you to drive home with it, and it has a history of being reliable, so it won’t cost you in repairs.Safe, practical, attractive, and economical. This is the car you marry.Where to go from here?Those in the Huntington area, give Thabiti Lee a ring at Huntington Toyota and go test drive a Corolla. Or call Peter Zorzy and check out Atlantic Toyota in Amityville. Michael Rizzuto at Millennium Toyota on Franklin Avenue in Hempstead can put you in your 2014 Corolla today.
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York It’s official: fans of HBO’s exclusive content are no longer required to have a cable subscription to get access to the network’s desired catalogue of shows, movies and documentaries.That’s because HBO on Tuesday announced that it’s official streaming service, HBO Now, has gone live. The service’s debut comes just days before the much-anticipated return of the fantasy epic Game of Thrones and half-hour comedy Veep, both of which return on Sunday. But the service isn’t yet available to anyone with an Internet connection.Only Apple TV owners and Cablevision’s Optimum Online subscribers can access HBO’s new streaming service. Cablevision is the only major cable operator and Internet service provider in the nation that struck a deal with HBO to stream HBO Now. HBO is owned by Time Warner.Season 5 of HBO’s hit fantasy epic Game of Thrones will air Sunday, April 12. (Photo: HBO/Game of Thrones)The network’s standalone streaming service is in response to a new wave of so-called cord cutters—a growing segment of content consumers who favor Internet-only services such as Netflix and Hulu over exorbitantly priced cable TV packages which typically include scores of channels that subscribers pay for but rarely watch, if ever.Historically, HBO was offered solely at an additional monthly fee through cable operators.HBO Now, like HBO Go (an Internet service available to HBO’s cable subscribers), offers complete seasons of shows and an impressive library of movies and documentaries that have previously aired on HBO. A monthly subscription is priced at $14.99. HBO is currently offering a 30-day free trial for HBO Now.HBO Now is currently being offered to Apple TV owners and Optimum Online subscribers. (Credit: Screenshot/HBO Now)Of course, the one drawback is HBO Now subscribers won’t have the opportunity to watch a show like Game of Thrones live, but the network promises live programming will be “added as quickly as possible, usually within hours of broadcast.”Viewing habits have changed considerably thanks to a plethora of streaming services, “on demand” options and with the ability to record live programming on digital video recorders (DVRs) or devices like TiVo. The one outlier, however, is live sports, which fans prefer to watch as its happening and often draws the highest ratings.Other networks are also getting into the streaming business. CBS has its own service called CBS All Access, which costs $5.99-per-month and Direct TV offers Sling, which starts at $20/month and includes popular channels like ESPN, AMC, TNT and Food Network.
This is the eighth of a 12-part series on our blog highlighting the 12 major development issues. In case you missed it, last month we discussed women in development, which can be found here. This month we are focusing on appropriate technology.The term appropriate technology has been around since the early 1950’s and was coined to address the most effective technology to be used in developing areas, or to be socially and environmentally acceptable within industrialized nations.Within the credit union movement, access to affordable and appropriate technology varies depending on local infrastructure, financial resources and credit union business plans. Members of Guadalupe Credit Union in rural New Mexico may not have access to internet services, making online banking impossible. Many lack even a cell signal and will drive 45 minutes to an hour to reach a financial institution of any kind. The credit union is considering a mobile branch to reach these remote communities.As credit unions grow, they seek to become more innovative in adopting new technologies to increase efficiency and to give a better member experience. More than ever before, credit unions are seeking technology to help members manage their money with online applications and mobile devices. Will brick and mortar become a thing of the past? Will credit unions that focus heavily on technology lose what being a credit union means? Will these cease to grow? continue reading » 1SHARESShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr
continue reading » ShareShareSharePrintMailGooglePinterestDiggRedditStumbleuponDeliciousBufferTumblr Both consumers and businesses want payments to be faster and simpler — witness on the consumer side the boom in the use of Zelle, Venmo and other services. The Federal Reserve has announced plans for its own faster payments initiative. The nation’s largest banks, hard at work on a faster payments scheme of their own, aren’t happy about the proposed FedNow.The Fed’s timeframe — calling for a launch in 2023 or 2024 — is an eternity in the new world of technology in which banks and credit unions operate today, particularly considering that the Fed began its consideration of realtime payments back in 2013. The Fed also announced its intention to explore the expansion of the hours of the Fedwire Funds Service and National Settlement Service, up to 24x7x365, to provide support for private-sector faster payments and related efforts.Good intentions, but FedNow seems years too late. Realtime payments systems are commonplace around the globe, from the U.K. to Sweden to Singapore to Australia. The U.K’s faster payments scheme began in a limited, same-day form in the 1980s, and a comprehensive faster payments scheme was initiated in 2003 — ten years before the Fed began its study and sent out requests for comment.
This radical view of what lawyers call the “unitary executive” isn’t completely crazy, especially if you take Dowd’s words charitably.But it is wrong.The president can indeed express opinions about legal cases. Yet he isn’t above the law that defines obstruction as an attempt to block the course of justice with corrupt intent.If he tries to pervert the judicial system to advance corrupt interests, he’s violating federal law.He would also be committing a high crime qualifying him for impeachment under the Constitution:The first impeachment charge against Richard Nixon was precisely for obstruction of justice for his conduct in the Watergate coverup.One of the articles of impeachment approved by the House against Bill Clinton was for obstruction of justice. In the 1988 case of Morrison v. Olson, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the independent counsel statute that was later used to appoint Ken Starr and prosecute President Clinton.The only dissenter was Justice Antonin Scalia, who maintained that the prosecutorial function must belong to the executive under the Constitution.Lots of scholars agree with Scalia and have criticized the Morrison case, but it’s still good law. It’s just that Congress let the law lapse after it expired in 1999.All this is the necessary background to Dowd’s theory.His idea is that, because the president is the head federal prosecutor, and prosecutors are allowed to use discretion in whom they prosecute, any judgment by the president about how that prosecution should be exercised is within the president’s power — and can’t be obstruction of justice.To the extent this view makes sense, it should cover any opinion sincerely expressed by the president for what he judges to be the good of the country — or for any non-corrupt whim.If, for example, Trump sincerely thought that former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was a good guy who shouldn’t go to prison, it was perfectly legal for him to ask FBI Director James Comey to let the Flynn investigation go. Indeed, even firing Comey because he disagreed would be lawful and not obstruction of justice. To see why Dowd’s view, though wrong, isn’t utterly bizarre, consider that the U.S., almost alone among developed constitutional democracies, puts prosecution in the executive branch instead of a formally independent prosecutorial entity.That’s because the Constitution creates three branches of government, and three only, thus requiring all federal government authority to fit into one of those boxes.Other constitutional systems include the prosecutorial authority alongside the judiciary, so that prosecutors are meant to function as independent quasi-judges.In the U.S. system, from the start, the attorney general worked for the president and federal prosecutors answered to the attorney general.That means the president is formally the prosecutor in chief.The independence prosecutors typically enjoy derives from powerful traditional norms or from regulations that limit the president’s ability to fire —like the Department of Justice regulation that says only the attorney general can fire a special prosecutor like Robert Mueller, and only for good cause.In theory, Congress could create truly independent prosecutors. It can make it a crime for the president to use his discretionary power as commander in chief to order U.S. forces to murder his enemies.What these examples have in common with the crime of obstruction is that Congress is prohibiting the president’s corrupt exercise of discretionary power.And even if all this analysis were wrong, and Congress did lack the power to criminalize presidential corruption, it would still be within Congress’s power to impeach the president for obstruction of justice or other corrupt acts.That’s because Congress is the sole judge of impeachments, and high crimes and misdemeanors don’t have to be actual statutory crimes — they can be corrupt acts connected to the office of the presidency that Congress deems to subvert democracy and the rule of law.In other words, even if he were right about federal law, which he isn’t, Dowd would still be wrong when it came to impeachment. And that’s the forum where Trump’s alleged misconduct will have to be judged first.Noah Feldman, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of law at Harvard University.More from The Daily Gazette:EDITORIAL: Find a way to get family members into nursing homesEDITORIAL: Beware of voter intimidationEDITORIAL: Thruway tax unfair to working motoristsFoss: Should main downtown branch of the Schenectady County Public Library reopen?EDITORIAL: Urgent: Today is the last day to complete the census Categories: Editorial, OpinionIt’s happening: President Donald Trump’s lawyer John Dowd asserted Monday that the “president cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under” Article II of the Constitution and “has every right to express his view of any case.” The trouble with Dowd’s view is that he seems to want it to apply to cases where the president had a corrupt intent.That would be, for example, if the president sought to hide his own criminal conduct.Or imagine a president who had a Mafioso friend and wanted to block his friend’s prosecution because the president owed him a favor. Those actions would squarely violate the statute.Dowd’s view seems to be that even in those cases, the president couldn’t be charged with obstruction of justice, because Congress lacks the authority to tell the president when and how to exercise his prosecutorial discretion.Nothing the president ever did in the exercise of that discretion could be made unlawful, unless it violated the Constitution itself.This cannot be right. The president has many powers that come with inherent discretion, and Congress may regulate his exercise of most of them.Congress can make it a crime for the president to take a bribe to exercise his discretionary powers.
Wolf Administration, Attorney General Petition Commonwealth Court to Protect Seniors and Enforce Consent Decree between UPMC and Highmark, Compel Arbitration
Wolf Administration, Attorney General Petition Commonwealth Court to Protect Seniors and Enforce Consent Decree between UPMC and Highmark, Compel Arbitration Government That Works, Healthcare, Press Release, Seniors Harrisburg, PA – The Wolf Administration and the Office of the Attorney General today filed a motion in Commonwealth Court to protect seniors who rely on Medicare Advantage by enforcing the Consent Decrees entered into by UPMC and Highmark, and to force the two sides into arbitration to settle outstanding disputes to end the confusion for consumers.“I will not allow our most vulnerable citizens, especially seniors, to be used as pawns in the dispute between UPMC and Highmark,” said Governor Wolf. “UPMC’s decision to cancel Medicare Advantage for over 180,000 seniors was the final straw after my administration’s repeated attempts to resolve differences in good faith. After reviewing all options with the Office of Attorney General, the Commonwealth has decided to pursue this matter in court to protect seniors.”“Additionally, as a result of myriad issues, and the reality that UPMC and Highmark will not come to agreement on the issues laid out in the Consent Decrees, the Commonwealth is seeking to force the two sides into arbitration,” continued Governor Wolf. “Consumers, including seniors and people with cancer, have had enough, and the games between UPMC and Highmark must end. I am committed to protecting consumers and I believe that arbitration will bring stability to the market place. I am hopeful that we can find a solution that suits both sides, but most importantly, one that puts consumers first.”“We’re taking this action because these constant disputes have created confusion and uncertainty for consumers — especially seniors,” Attorney General Kane said. “We will remain vigilant in ensuring the interests of health care consumers continue to be protected.”Recently, UPMC decided to cancel its Medicare Advantage plan with Highmark, putting over 180,000 seniors at risk of losing access to their doctors. This is the latest dispute between the two sides that have put our most vulnerable, including seniors and people with cancer, in the middle. The Commonwealth has worked tirelessly with UPMC and Highmark to mediate their serial disputes to ensure compliance with the Consent Decrees. Unfortunately, both sides have refused to comply with the terms of the Consent Decrees and their refusal has resulted in confusion and hardship among Pennsylvania residents.“Following through on Governor Wolf’s commitment to protect Pennsylvania’s most vulnerable citizens, my department will continue vigorous enforcement of the Consent Decrees, and hope the arbitration process will help further define the consumer protections to which UPMC and Highmark customers are entitled,” said Acting Insurance Commissioner Teresa Miller.MEDIA CONTACT: Jeff Sheridan – 717.783.1116# # # April 27, 2015 SHARE Email Facebook Twitter
Governor Wolf Announces Second $26.5 Million Federal Grant to Continue Fight Against Opioid and Heroin Crisis
Governor Wolf Announces Second $26.5 Million Federal Grant to Continue Fight Against Opioid and Heroin Crisis Press Release, Public Health, Substance Use Disorder Harrisburg, PA – Governor Tom Wolf today announced that his administration secured another $26.5 million grant through the federal 21st Century Cures Act to address the heroin and opioid epidemic. The grant represents a second year of funding for Pennsylvania under the act and will continue efforts to increase access to treatment, reduce unmet treatment needs for special populations, strengthen prevention activities around the commonwealth, and address the issue of stigma towards addiction that creates barriers to treatment and living in recovery.“Fighting the opioid and heroin epidemic and helping the Pennsylvanians impacted by the disease of addiction have been priorities for my administration since day one,” Governor Wolf said. “This funding allows my administration to continue progress made because of the first year of Cures Act funding, and I thank the federal government for its support and partnership in fighting this epidemic.”The $26.5 million State Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis Grant (Opioid STR) will be used to continue year-one progress to ensure access to quality, evidence-based substance use disorder treatment programs and to provide support to new initiatives that focus on workforce development and special populations such as women.The second grant award will continue funding treatment for uninsured and underinsured Pennsylvanians, support the Pennsylvania Coordinated Medication-Assisted Treatment (PacMAT) program by adding more sites around the commonwealth, and continue point-of-care integration and training on the Prescription Drug Monitoring Program (PDMP).“The second round of funding from the 21st Century Cures Grant will continue to help us in our efforts as we address the public health crisis of opioid addiction,” Secretary of Health Dr. Rachel Levine said. “This funding is essential as we work to ensure that those with opioid use disorder get into treatment. Treatment offers hope to individuals, families and communities throughout Pennsylvania that are being affected by opioids.”The grant award comes through a continued partnership and joint application from the departments of Aging, Drug and Alcohol Programs, Health, and Human Services. The four agencies met regularly during the first funding year to monitor initiatives and continue to meet through the Opioid Operational Command Center established by Governor Wolf’s disaster declaration to discuss opportunities for initiatives that could be supported by a second year of funding.The announcement comes during National Addiction Treatment Week, which raises awareness for substance use disorder and the availability of treatment for the disease.“The programs and initiatives made possible by the 21st Century Cures Act and the Opioid STR grant expand the tools providers have when treating individuals with a substance use disorder,” said Department of Drug and Alcohol Programs Secretary Jennifer Smith. “Evidence-based programs work, and this award will continue that investment and allow us to provide greater support and help for our most vulnerable Pennsylvanians.”Governor Wolf also called on Pennsylvania’s congressional delegation to support proposals that would extend the Opioid STR grants. Multiple bills have been introduced that would extend grant availability, including the Combating the Opioid Epidemic Act sponsored by the Senator Bob Casey, which would make STR funding available through 2027. Under current law, this is the final year for Opioid STR funding.“We did not reach this level of crisis over night and ending the opioid and heroin epidemic will take more than two years,” said Governor Wolf. “The programs made possible by the Opioid STR grant are making a tangible difference in states’ fights to help people and communities touched by this crisis. We must continue to invest in evidence-based and effective programs made possible by federal support.”For more information on the commonwealth’s response to the opioid epidemic and treatment options around Pennsylvania, visit www.pa.gov/opioids. April 25, 2018 SHARE Email Facebook Twitter