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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: Citing states’ rights, jobs and the right to bear arms, congressional Republicans are reversing dozens of Obama-era rules affecting the environment, education and the energy sector. The GOP is using a largely unknown but highly effective legislative tool that allows a simple majority in the House and Senate to overturn regulations that often took years to craft. Indeed, with an overhaul of health insurance going off the rails, Republicans are left pointing to the repeal of various government regulations as their crowning legislative achievement after some 70 days at work. The GOP casts the effort as overturning eight years of excessive government regulation and boosting business. “These things will help get people back to work, and after years of sluggish growth, give a real boost to our economy,” Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said this past week. The president has signed eight resolutions revoking regulations issued during the final months of Democrat Barack Obama’s presidency. Six resolutions have cleared Congress and are awaiting the president’s signature. A couple dozen more are on deck, with last Thursday the deadline for filing more. Trump has signed measures eliminating requirements that mining and oil companies report payments made to foreign governments. The rule was designed to shine a light on how much money foreign governments received for their nation’s resources, thus reducing the prospect of corruption. He also signed another measure reversing an Obama plan to prevent coal mining debris from being dumped into nearby streams. “These actions from Congress and the president are giving hope to businesses that they haven’t had in a long time,” said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi scoffed at the notion that Republicans were accomplishing anything with the regulatory repeals “because they do not meet the needs of the American people.” “They are about trickle-down. Their life is about giving more money to the high-end and to corporate interests, maybe it will trickle down, that would be good, but if it doesn’t, so be it, that’s the free market,” Pelosi said. Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, said the regulatory repeals Congress pushed through will actually damage the economy more than it helps. He said that eliminating the stream protection rule may help coal companies, but it hurts other companies that stand to gain through healthier streams and water supplies. “If you look across the terrain of the Congressional Review Act resolutions, they are repeals of public measures that help, consumers, workers and the environment in very substantial ways, but are opposed by powerful corporate interests,” Weissman said. “The Republicans driving these measures are paying back their corporate benefactors at the expense of the public.” In some cases, the regulatory repeal efforts have had nothing to do with the economy, but addressed hot-button social issues that so often dominate Washington politics. Republicans blocked a Social Security Administration rule that would have prevented tens of thousands of mentally disabled beneficiaries from being able to purchase a firearm. The rule was targeted specifically at those beneficiaries with mental disorders who have a third party manage their financial benefits, and it was opposed by the NRA and several advocacy groups for the disabled. The latest repeal effort clearing both chambers required Republicans to bring Vice President Mike Pence to the Capitol so he could cast the tie-breaking vote on the abortion issue. The scrapping of the Health and Human Services rule gave states the go-ahead to deny federal family planning money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers. One of the more closely contested repeals would kill an online privacy regulation. Fifteen Republicans sided with Democrats in opposing the repeal, which Pelosi said would allow internet providers to sell personal information without a user’s consent. “You should be very, very scared,” she said. The ability of Congress to void regulations with a simple majority was created in 1996 when Congress passed the Congressional Review Act. In the 20 years since, Congress was only able to use it once to repeal a regulation. Congress sent five repeal resolutions to Obama, but he vetoed each of them. Trump made clear early on that he would back the efforts of the GOP-led Congress. “I will keep working with Congress, with every agency, and most importantly with the American people until we eliminate every unnecessary, harmful and job-killing regulation that we can find,” Trump said this past week. “We have a lot more coming.” The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has encouraged the regulatory rollbacks, weighing in with lawmakers on efforts affecting internet providers, federal contractors and energy companies. Neil Bradley, a senior vice president at the Chamber, acknowledges that it’s hard to say how many jobs are created or saved through the repeal of one particular rule, but he says employers of all sizes tell the chamber government regulations are a top concern that makes it harder for them to flourish. “Any time we can roll back these regulations is another step forward to restoring the economic growth that I think is the top priority of the American people,” Bradley said. ____ On Twitter, reach Kevin Freking at https://twitter.com/APkfreking Claim: GOP Congress rolls back rules on hunting, broadband privacy.

Answer: Hunters could soon target grizzly bears from the air on Alaska’s federal lands. Internet providers may get to sell the browsing habits of their customers. States will be able to deny federal family planning money to Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers.


Question: Paragraph: "Republican House leaders fanned out on the Sunday shows to defend a stop-gap measure to fund the Department of Homeland Security in their ongoing fight against President Barack Obama's executive action on immigration. They did not stray from talking points. TV audiences Sunday heard one specific number several times as hosts pressed the GOP lawmakers to justify the chaos over funding for the Department of Homeland Security. ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did,"" House Speaker John Boehner said on CBS’ Face the Nation. Both Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and Majority Whip Steve Scalise repeated the ""22 times"" talking point on NBC’s Meet the Press and Fox News Sunday, respectively. Even Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, one of 52 Republicans who opposed a three-week funding plan, used the figure to defend his House Freedom Caucus’ actions on CNN’s State of the Union. PolitiFact wanted to see where the number comes from and just how accurate it is. What we’re talking about The controversy stems from Obama’s Nov. 20, 2014, announcement that he would delay deportations of unauthorized immigrants who have lived in the country for more than five years but have children who are citizens or have green cards. More than 4 million people could qualify. An applicant could qualify for a work permit and avoid being deported for three years at a time if he or she can pass a background check and pay a fee. The decision is bound for higher court battles after a Texas federal judge issued a temporary injunction on the action, saying it may have violated procedural rules for using executive power. This action came on top of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program in 2012, an executive action to protect ""dreamers,"" or people brought here illegally as children and have not committed crimes. That move, too, was viewed by critics as an abuse of power, but supporters said it helped provide a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of residents. After Obama’s post-midterm elections announcement on immigration, Boehner’s office unleashed a Buzzfeed-style blog post detailing ""22 Times President Obama Said He Couldn’t Ignore or Create His Own Immigration Law."" What’s on Boehner’s list Our PolitiFact Texas colleagues dissected Boehner’s list for similar fact-checks of U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, and Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, the Republican who led the legal challenge of Obama’s actions when he was still attorney general. PolitiFact Texas tracked down each of the citations in Boehner’s post, comparing what they said Obama said with transcripts and news stories. In a nutshell, the majority of the examples are of Obama saying he did not have power to do more on immigration without Congress. Others, as we’ll explain in a moment, say something more nuanced or aren’t specific to immigration. We won’t go through every quote that supports Boehner’s point here, but here are a few we culled from a document created by PolitiFact Texas: In September 2012, Obama was asked if he would follow up his recent protective move for students by doing something similar for non-criminal immigrants such as the parents of U.S.-born children. Obama replied that ""as the head of the executive branch, there’s a limit to what I can do… we’re still going to, ultimately, have to change the laws in order to avoid some of the heartbreaking stories that you see coming up occasionally,"" as in parents deported. (No. 13 on Boehner’s list.) At a presidential debate in October 2012, Obama and Mitt Romney were asked: ""What do you plan on doing with immigrants without their green card that are currently living here as productive members of society?"" Obama said: ""I've done everything that I can on my own."" (No. 14 on Boehner’s list.) In a January 2013 Telemundo interview, Obama was asked why he couldn’t protect mothers living here without authorization from deportation as he had served law-abiding students. ""I’m not a king,"" Obama replied, akin to his response the same month to a similar query from Univision. ""You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. And-- you know, when it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws-- we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize-- what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law."" (No. 16 on Boehner’s list.) So clearly there are examples of Obama saying he couldn’t do more with executive action, then later doing exactly that. That’s why PolitiFact previously rated Obama’s claim that ""my position hasn’t changed"" as False. What should not be counted But also included on Boehner’s list of 22 are quotes where Obama was either suggesting his executive powers did not have hard limits or was silent on his executive power on immigration. Here are a few problems with quotes included on Boehner’s list. In two instances during his 2008 presidential campaign, Obama criticized ""signing statements"" used by President George W. Bush that interpret laws, but he did not bring up immigration. Immigration was also not part of his reply to a question at a 2010 MTV/BET event when he said, ""I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there,"" in response to a question about ""don’t ask, don’t tell."" (Nos. 1, 2 and 5.) In September 2011, with his deferred-action plan on the horizon, Obama reiterated that he cannot just change laws unilaterally in response to a question about possible administrative relief for students who don’t have legal residency. But he hinted that there might be room within his authority, saying, ""what we can do is to prioritize enforcement, since there are limited enforcement resources."" (No. 12 on Boehner’s list.) Obama’s July 2013 Univision interview hit similar notes when he was asked if he could grant amnesty to the undocumented population. He called for a legislative solution and said ""probably not,"" adding, ""I can do some things and have done some things that make a difference in the lives of people by determining how our enforcement should focus."" (No. 18 on Boehner’s list.) In August 2014, Obama told reporters he may ""scour our authorities to try to make progress"" without congressional cooperation. Obama said, ""We’re going to make sure that every time we take one of these steps that we are working within the confines of my executive power. But I promise you the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs and waiting for Congress to get something done."" (No. 22 on Boehner’s list.) Asked why Boehner continues to cite 22 examples, spokesman Michael Steel told PolitiFact ""we obviously stand by"" the count. Pressed to explain why, he said, ""Obviously, we're just going to agree to disagree about the ‘22 times’ figure, which we feel is accurate."" The bigger picture Whether the real number is 22, 15 or something less than that is more complicated by the specifics of Boehner’s claim. Boehner's claim is Obama said he couldn’t do ""what he eventually did."" Experts we talked to noted that Obama was not always so specific in the comments Boehner and his team cited. Boehner’s count factors in both instances of Obama talking about how he could not legalize or deport the entire undocumented population as well as more limited executive actions to relieve smaller populations. ""It gives me a headache,"" said Anna O. Law, a CUNY Brooklyn College political science professor, of the post, ""because they’re playing semantics."" Alex Nowrasteh, a Cato Institute immigration analyst, said he did not know what to make of the ""very political"" claim. Ultimately, much of it depends on your specific interpretation of each quote. Our ruling Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times. Clarification: This item was updated on March 2, 2015, to better explain the ruling of a federal judge in Texas." Claim: "On immigration, ""the president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."

Answer: "Boehner said, ""The president said 22 times, 22 times, that he couldn't do what he eventually did."" Boehner's broader point -- that Obama said one thing about executive action but did another -- is accurate. But he should refrain from the rhetorical flourish of saying Obama said it 22 times."


Question: Paragraph: Not a word about costs – difficult to comprehend given the estimates the New York Times provided of $120,000 per course of treatment for one and “at least tens of thousands” per year for another. Is this not an issue worthy of a line? Adequate explanation of the benefits reported in both studies. Not a single word about potential harms, as opposed to a New York Times story, which described – variously for the two drugs: Again, is this not worthy of at least a line? Adequate explanation of the evidence. Interestingly, both this story and the one from Reuters provided information from the ASCO meetings and neglected to tell readers that both studies have been published in a peer reviewed journal. The NY Times provided both sources. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Two independent experts were quoted. Adequate job reporting the comparisons seen in the trials of the two drugs. The story makes it clear that vemurafenib is experimental and Yervoy is commercially available. Unfortunately, the story includes a prediction from the ASCO President and others that , “…vemurafenib will almost certainly get FDA approval this year.” While this may occur, it is not certain. And a little shoe leather journalism would easily find someone who would remind readers that FDA approval is not a fait accompli. Because of this, we judge this unsatisfactory. The relative novelty of the two drugs was established. It’s clear the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Two new drugs extend survival for melanoma patients

Answer:
More broadly, the story contained none of the restrained context provided by the Times. Read and compare. Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story fell short in comparison with the competing New York Times story.