Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

[Q]: "The effort to pass a sweeping immigration law has shifted to the Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives where it faces a much tougher challenge than it did in the Senate. Supporters say that any hope for success lies in compromise. House Republican leaders say the Senate bill falls short in significant ways, but Democrats argue that it already contains major concessions. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., a long-time advocate for immigration reform from Chicago, highlighted how much his side was willing to give up to get the Senate bill through. ""They said to immigrants, 11 million of them, they said, tell you what we're going to do: For 10 years, you pay every tax possible, but you don't get a single benefit,"" Gutierrez said on CNN’s State of the Union. Gutierrez gave some examples: Immigrants with provisional legal status would not get help paying their health insurance premiums under Obamacare, and they would get no credit for any Social Security taxes they paid during the time they worked illegally. In this fact-check, we explore the terms of the deal in the Senate bill. Are they as stark as Gutierrez presents, or is the picture more complicated? Gutierrez’s staff clarified that he was using shorthand to refer to means-tested federal benefits.That would include some of the country’s largest programs such as Medicaid, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF or welfare), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps). What the Senate bill says The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act allows immigrants without documents to get permission to live and work in the country legally. The Social Security Administration expects that nearly three-fourths of the estimated 11.5 million people here will qualify for what is called Registered Provisional Immigrant, status, or RPI. A smaller number of agricultural workers would qualify for a separate program called the blue card. Neither program grants citizenship or permanent legal status, but they provide a pathway to both. Applicants would need to pay a fine, a fee, and pass a criminal background check to qualify for provisional status. The bill has a specific provision that goes to Gutierrez’s claim. For both RPI and blue card holders, it says, ""An alien who has been granted blue card (or RPI) status is not eligible for any Federal means-tested public benefit"" and to be clear about what those benefits are, the bill refers to a law passed about 15 years ago. In 1996, Congress defined the public benefits that undocumented immigrants couldn’t get. That law listed ""Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit."" Numerous agencies have interpreted this to mean Medicaid and Medicare, SNAP, energy assistance and so forth. The Senate bill also expressly blocks immigrants with temporary status from receiving any health insurance premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. However, individuals can use their own money to buy their insurance through the clearinghouses called exchanges. ""Rep. Gutierrez is broadly correct, but not 100 percent,"" said Leighton Ku, a professor in the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University who analyzed immigrant use of public benefits in a paper for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. ""If they are poor enough and meet other eligibility criteria, for example, if they are a child or a low-income parent, RPIs may be eligible for emergency Medicaid, as are unauthorized immigrants."" The 1996 law built in some exceptions for immigrants without legal documents. In addition to Medicaid paying for emergency medical treatment, young children are eligible for reduced school lunch programs and standard immunizations. The Women, Infant and Children program, WIC, can subsidize grocery bills for young families. So for children, women who are pregnant or have recently delivered, and medical emergencies, current law allows benefits for the undocumented and the Senate bill does not change that. Lastly, on the tax side, the Senate bill says ""an alien may not file an application for registered provisional immigrant status ... unless the applicant has satisfied any applicable Federal tax liability."" In other words, these provisional residents must pay Uncle Sam. Regarding the 10 years Gutierrez mentioned, some immigrants under provisional status might be eligible for permanent resident status, a green card, sooner. If that happens, then they would gain access to public benefits in less than 10 years. However, both Social Security and Medicare require that a person or their spouse pay into the system for 10 years before they can claim any benefits. This applies to everyone, native born or not. And both programs are available only to citizens or permanent residents. People with provisional status would have Social Security and Medicare taxes deducted from their paychecks but would be ineligible to use those programs for 10 years. A dispute over benefits The U.S. Code defines public benefits, but there are some who say the list is incomplete. Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that favors limited immigration, said the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit provide aid to lower income workers through the tax code. A working family that owes no taxes and meets other criteria can apply and receive thousands of dollars from the government. ""Gutierrez is mistaken,"" Camarota said. ""These large programs are explicitly available to those in RPI status. Low income immigrants typically work and have children, so their use rates of these two programs are very high, as it will be for RPI folks."" Immigration reform advocates agree that provisional residents would gain from the tax credits. But Tanya Broder, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, counters that blocking their use of these credits would be a first for the tax code. ""Individuals granted RPI status are required to pay the same taxes and are subject to the same deductions from their income as all other taxpayers,"" Broder said. ""Denying them the ability to claim the EITC would create an unprecedented two-tiered tax system for lawfully present workers."" Regarding the accuracy of Gutierrez’s statement, he was using the federal definition of benefits, and while lawmakers could decide otherwise, we take current law as our guide. For many years, Camarota and others have noted that the children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States are deemed citizens and are eligible for benefits. Their family members could indirectly benefit. The Senate bill makes no change in that. Our ruling Gutierrez said that immigrants with provisional status would pay every tax and get no benefits. His staff said he was talking about means-tested benefits, and to a large extent, Gutierrez was in line with what the Senate immigration bill says. It requires unauthorized immigrants to pay taxes, and so long as they are in a provisional status, they would not be eligible for food, housing or medical assistance. There are exceptions under current law that would allow them to get some public benefits, but these are limited and in any event, the Senate bill does not change the status quo. A subset of immigrants, children brought to the country at a young age and agricultural workers, would be eligible for green cards in less than 10 years, but the majority, about 70 percent, would have to wait the full time."
[A]: "Luis Gutierrez Says under the Senate immigration bill, newly legalized immigrants will ""pay every tax possible, but you don’t get a single benefit"" for 10 years."


[Q]: Since the vaccine is not available, a discussion of costs is not warranted. The piece does a nice job of presenting the results of the initial report in terms of absolute and relative risk reduction; however, absolute data is not provided for the secondary analyses. To its credit, the story clearly and effectively explained statistical significance as it relates to this research. As stated in previous coverage, the story reiterates that the benefits of the vaccine are modest and additional research is needed. Given that this is a follow-up report focused on newly released data, a discussion of the potential harms of the vaccine is not necessary. This story does an excellent job defining the different types of analyses used to evaluate the outcome data. The story also points out the results of the secondary analyses have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, suggesting the calculations have been checked for accuracy. This story does not engage in disease-mongering. This story does not provide commentary from any independent sources. In this case, a single comment from a biostatistical consultant would have provided helpful perspective. Given the nature of this follow-up story, a discussion on the existing alternatives to HIV prevention may not be warranted. This story makes it known that the vaccine is still in the testing phase and is not yet available. The story makes it clear that researchers have been working on an AIDS vaccine for decades. The story does not appear to be based on a press release.
[A]: AIDS Vaccine Is of Modest Help, Fuller Research Says


[Q]: "During a recent visit to Virginia, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul took exception to claims that budget cuts have hurt the National Institute of Health’s efforts to find a cure for Ebola. The Kentucky Republican was the headliner at an Oct. 15 rally in Ashland for Dave Brat, the GOP nominee for the 7th District congressional seat. Paul, a Tea Party favorite, said NIH has money to waste. ""Do you know what the NIH spends money on?"" he asked the crowd. Paul listed a series of NIH projects he viewed as profligate. ""$2.4 million of the NIH dollars was spent on ‘origami’ condoms,""  he said. ""This is a family crowd, so I’m not getting into what that means."" But we will. We wondered if his claim is correct. Origami is the Japanese art of folding paper to form animals, flowers and other designs, according to Webster’s New World College Dictionary. We struggled to imagine how this centuries-old craft might improve the condom. Paul’s office backed the senator’s statement by sending us several articles about NIH’s funding of condom research, the earliest one published by the Washington Free Beacon this March. Turns out, there’s a California company, named ORIGAMI, that’s vowing to reinvent the condom, a contraceptive that many men don’t like. The company believes the popularity of condoms  -- which must be unrolled and are typically made of latex -- would greatly improve if they were more pleasing, less cumbersome and safer to use. ORIGAMI is developing condom with accordion-like pleats. They’re made of silicone and, because they’re loose-fitting and don’t have to be unrolled, can be put on faster than traditional condoms. The company is seeking FDA approval and hopes sell its product next year. A number of global health organizations are encouraging condom research and development, convinced that greater use of devices will lead to fewer unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDs. Since 2006, NIH has awarded seven grants totaling almost $2.5 million to help develop male and female ORIGAMI condoms. The money was provided to Strata Various, a product design firm headed by Danny Resnic, ORIGAMI’s founder. Resnic is listed on the grant documents as the project leader of the research. ORIGAMI’s work has been praised by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which last year handed out $1.1 million in grants other entrepreneurs seeking to improve condoms. The Foundation said ORIGAMI ""provides an excellent example of a private enterprise focused on new condom design to promote consistent use by emphasizing the sexual experience."" Now, let’s return to Paul’s speech. The senator, in lamenting the use of public funds to develop  ""origami’ condoms,"" never defined the difference between the folded paper art and the name of a company. We asked Brian Darling, a spokesman for Paul, whether his boss was referring to Origami with a capital ""O,"" meaning the company, or a small ""o,"" meaning the art form. ""The senator’s words speak for themselves,"" Darling replied in an email. ""I don’t understand the confusion."" The day before he appeared in Ashland, Paul spelled origami with a small ""o"" in Facebook post and a tweet assailing NIH’s spending. ""NIH blames tightening federal budget for its inability to produce #Ebolavaccine, but somehow found $2.4 million to develop 'origami' condoms designed with Japanese folding paper in mind,"" Paul wrote on his Facebook page. He tweeted, ""@NIH cant afford #Ebola vaccine bc of 'budget cuts' but can spend $2.4 mill to develop 'origami' condoms #Priorities http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-"" So what does the company have to say about all this? Mark Bardwell, an ORIGAMI spokesman, defended the grants, saying they are given out ""based on scientific merit."" ""Condoms are considered a medical device. As such, it must pass FDA safety testing standards through clinical trials that are very expensive,"" Bardwell said. ""An innovation condom could take 3-4 years and several million dollars for R&D and human testing."" Our ruling In trying to document waste at NIH, Paul said the health agency spent $2.4 million on ""origami"" condoms. Paul didn’t provide any more information in his speech, leaving the crowd to wonder whether tax dollars are going to the development of paper condoms folded into fancy shapes. What he didn’t say is that ORIGAMI is the name of a company that has received the NIH grants to develop an improved condom that is made of silicone and has fold-out pleats. NIH has long encouraged  condom use to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. We don’t find much fault with Paul, however. The company, by its very name, suggests the principles of origami drive its design."
[A]:
$2.4 million of the NIH dollars was spent on ‘origami’ condoms.