Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Q: Paragraph: The city said in a release that it will spend $9.4 million to boost its mobile mental health treatment teams, which were launched in 2016. The city said the new money will be part of a $21 million investment that will lead to the hiring of more social workers, housing specialists and legal assistance employees. The additional workers will be needed to process the 20% increase in mental health referrals the effort is expected to generate, the city said, adding that it will likely reach 900 more people annually. In addition, the city said it plans to spend $11 million to create hospital-based outreach teams to coordinate care for people who frequent emergency rooms and acute care facilities. Mayor Bill de Blasio said the initiative will keep neighborhoods safer. “We have an obligation to address our broken mental health system and do all we can to connect people who are struggling to treatment,” de Blasio said. “That includes the small percentage of those with mental illness that, left untreated, are at risk of committing violence against themselves or others.” The city said its mobile units are in addition to a program that teams up mental health professionals with police officers who engage clients with serious mental health needs and a history of violence. The goal, it said, is to connect those individuals to professional treatment and support systems such as housing or family. Claim: New York City expands mobile program to reach mentally ill.

A: New York City is expanding a program to use mobile units to reach hundreds of people who are mentally ill, the city announced Monday.
****
Q: Paragraph: In 1976, U.S. President Gerald Ford signed off on the National Emergencies Act (NEA), federal legislation that ended all previous national states of emergency and formalized the process by which the President can declare states of emergencies and undertake special powers during those emergencies. In general, the President may initiate a state of emergency by issuing a declaration (typically via executive order). An existing state of emergency can be terminated by the President himself, or by a joint resolution by Congress. The President can veto such a resolution, however, requiring both houses of Congress to then override the veto by a two-thirds vote. When President Donald Trump hinted in early 2019 his intention to bypass Congress and secure funding for building a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border by declaring a national emergency — and then followed through on that plan — the subject of “national emergencies” suddenly became a hot topic of public discussion. Since the public tends to associate that term with dire threats such as terrorist attacks, epidemics, or the outbreak of war, many people were surprised to learn that several dozen national emergencies had been declared since the passage of the NEA in 1976 — as reflected in a viral social media post:  According to the Brennan Center for Justice, at the time of President Trump’s declaration of a National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States in February 2019, some 58 national emergencies had previously been declared by various presidents since 1979, with 31 of them still in effect as of February 2019. The gist of the social media post displayed above is therefore correct, in that every U.S. president since 1976 (excluding Gerald Ford, whose term ended in January 1977) has declared at least one national emergency, although we came up with some slightly different numbers. (Our tally based on the Brennan Center’s list has Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush each declaring one more emergency than stated above, and President Barack Obama declaring one fewer than stated.) In addition, the majority of those emergency declarations remain in effect as of this writing. The focus of these national emergencies has ranged from President Carter’s blocking Iranian government property after fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were taken hostage in Tehran in 1979 and President Reagan’s barring trade with Nicaragua in 1985, to President Clinton’s prohibiting transactions with terrorists who threatened to disrupt the Middle East peace process in 1995 and President Obama’s declaring an emergency over the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009. Claim: Every U.S. president since 1976 has declared at least one national emergency.

A: In short, although many Americans may not have been aware of it at the beginning of 2019, the United States has been under one or more states of national emergency continuously for the last four decades.
****
Q: Paragraph: "Conventional wisdom would tell us that most normal folks will never have an interaction with police like the one Eric Garner had that ultimately led to his death. Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter warned that might not necessarily be the case. Citing the work of Rutgers University law scholar Douglas Husak, Carter wrote on Dec. 4 that ""70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment."" Carter noted that’s in part because there are 300,000 or more federal regulations that may be enforceable through criminal punishment. It's as though, Carter said, lawmakers tack on imprisonment to give a law heft. To paraphrase the old line, we are not just a nation of laws, we are a nation overrun by laws. Carter suggests reigning things in. The fact that 70 percent of people have committed a jailable offense is part of Carter's evidence. We wanted to know if other legal experts thought it was correct. They do. Before we get to their reasons, let’s be clear about what Carter and Husak are saying. By the way, Husak told us that Carter quoted him accurately. For Husak, the question wasn’t whether any court would be likely to put someone behind bars for a particular offense, but whether the law gives them the power to do so. Husak said one need look no further than the laws on prescription drugs. If a doctor gave you a prescription for the common painkiller vicodin and your spouse brings it to you as you lie in bed, ""your spouse is dispensing a controlled substance without a license,"" Husak said. Would that ever be enforced? Not likely. But Husak said that is how the law is written. If that were not enough to get to 70 percent of adults, Husak factored in illicit drug use. According to a 2012 survey by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, over half of the people in every age group born after 1950 said they had used an illicit drug at some time in their lives, primarily marijuana or prescription drugs. That alone comes to about 84 million people, or 37 percent of all people over 20. While some legal experts we reached said they didn’t know how you could come up with an exact number, just about all said it would be no trouble to keep adding more. Sonja Starr at the University of Michigan Law School said many people drink and drive. ""The Centers for Disease Control found 112 million self-reported incidences of drunk driving,"" Starr said, with the caveat that some drivers would report multiple offences. ""And that’s just in a single year."" Starr said you could easily get to the 70 percent mark. By and large, Starr’s counterparts at other law schools agreed. Bennett Capers, professor of law, Brooklyn Law School ""This doesn't give me pause at all. There are thousands of criminal statutes on the books, criminalizing things that some of us do without thinking. This runs the gamut from the serious (in New Jersey, it is technically a crime to have sex without first receiving ""freely given affirmative permission to the specific act of sexual penetration"") to the routine (fudging tax returns) to the mundane (illegal downloads)."" David Gray, professor of law, University of Maryland School of Law ""70 percent seems low to me. Once you factor in illegal drug use, crimes of recklessness (which seldom are detected because no harm accrues), downloading, DUI, failures to report income, and the scores of relatively innocuous offenses that just happen to carry the possibility of jail time in some jurisdictions, I’d be surprised if the percentage wasn’t much higher than 70 percent over the course of most adults’ lifetimes."" Jeffrey Fagan, professor of law and public health, Columbia Law School Fagan said he didn’t know the right percentage, but he could believe the 70 percent figure. ""I’ve violated imprisonable offenses while fishing,"" Fagan said. Robert Weisberg, professor of law, Stanford Law School ""The number is unknowable, but it strikes me as plausible."" Laurie Levenson, professor of law at Loyola Law School Los Angeles ""It does seem to exaggerate the likely number of Americans who are at actual risk of prosecution and imprisonment,"" Levenson said. ""What we really need to pay attention to is the percent of Americans who commit crimes that are on the prosecutors' radar screens."" Levenson’s point gets at a key ambiguity in Carter’s statement. Much depends on the interpretation of ""could lead to imprisonment."" In his article, Carter made it clear he did not mean that imprisonment was in any way likely. His point was simply that too many laws carry too hefty a penalty and in theory, anyone could become ensnared. Our ruling Carter said that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. Based on a strictly technical reading of existing laws, the consensus among the legal experts we reached is that the number is reasonable. Way more than a majority of Americans have done something in their lives that runs afoul of some law that includes jail or prison time as a potential punishment. That said, experts acknowledged that the likelihood of arrest, prosecution or imprisonment is exceedingly low for many of Americans’ ""crimes.""" Claim: More than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment.

A:
"Carter said that more than 70 percent of American adults have committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. Based on a strictly technical reading of existing laws, the consensus among the legal experts we reached is that the number is reasonable. Way more than a majority of Americans have done something in their lives that runs afoul of some law that includes jail or prison time as a potential punishment. That said, experts acknowledged that the likelihood of arrest, prosecution or imprisonment is exceedingly low for many of Americans’ ""crimes.""."
****