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.

Paragraph: An image graphic purportedly featuring an excerpt from a speech President John F. Kennedy was scheduled to deliver on the day that he was assassinated was recirculated on social media in November 2018:  These lines were part of a speech JFK was slated to make to the Texas Democratic State Committee in the Municipal Auditorium in Austin, Texas, on the evening of 22 November 1963. President Kennedy never had the opportunity to deliver that speech, however, as he was assassinated earlier that day while his motorcade drove through Dealey Plaza in Dallas. A transcript of this undelivered speech is available via the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum. The excerpt included in this meme comes from the penultimate paragraph of that text: Finally, I said in Lubbock in 1960, as I said in every other speech in this State, that if Lyndon Johnson and I were elected, we would get this country moving again. That pledge has been fulfilled. In nearly every field of national activity, this country is moving again — and Texas is moving with it. From public works to public health, wherever Government programs operate, the past 3 years have seen a new burst of action and progress — in Texas and all over America. We have stepped up the fight against crime and slums and poverty in our cities, against the pollution of our streams, against unemployment in our industry, and against waste in the Federal Government. We have built hospitals and clinics and nursing homes. We have launched a broad new attack on mental illness and mental retardation. We have initiated the training of more physicians and dentists. We have provided 4 times as much housing for our elderly citizens, and we have increased benefits for those on social security. Almost everywhere we look, the story is the same. In Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, in the councils of the world and in the jungles of far-off nations, there is now renewed confidence in our country and our convictions. For this country is moving and it must not stop. It cannot stop. For this is a time for courage and a time for challenge. Neither conformity nor complacency will do. Neither the fanatics nor the faint-hearted are needed. And our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed, to all mankind. Our duty is not merely the preservation of political power but the preservation of peace and freedom. So let us not be petty when our cause is so great. Let us not quarrel amongst ourselves when our Nation’s future is at stake. Let us stand together with renewed confidence in our cause–united in our heritage of the past and our hopes for the future — and determined that this land we love shall lead all mankind into new frontiers of peace and abundance. Kennedy was expected to deliver two speeches in Texas on the day that he was assassinated. The other, which was scheduled to take place at the Trade Mart in Dallas, was “recreated” by the Times of London and the creative Irish agency Rothco in March 2018: It took eight weeks to bring to life the 2,590 words John F Kennedy never got to speak. Sound engineers pulled 116,777 sound units from 831 of his speeches and radio addresses. These units were then split in half and analysed for pitch and energy. The half units, known as phones, were each about 0.04 seconds long and had to be tested next to each other to ensure that they did not clash. The W sound in weapons, for example, is not the same as the W sound in words. A portion of “JFK Unsilenced” recreation can be glimpsed below: Claim: "A passage from a speech JFK was supposed to deliver on the day he was assassinated stated that ""our duty as a party is not to our party alone, but to the Nation, and, indeed, to all mankind."
The words of President John F. Kennedy that the world never got to hear.

Paragraph: "During his widely watched monologue about his newborn son’s recent medical emergency, ABC late-night host Jimmy Kimmel offered a bit of praise for one group of Americans that doesn’t receive much love these days: members of Congress. ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Is that what happened? Basically, yes. Kimmel has a point that by approving the increase, both Republicans and Democrats in Congress rebuked Trump’s proposal and made clear a distaste for cutting NIH. Budget experts, however, may quibble that Kimmel oversimplified a bit on the numbers. First, some background. NIH conducts and disseminates research into the causes, diagnosis, prevention and cure of human diseases. It is a collection of 27 separate institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. Explaining Kimmel’s comment starts with the release earlier this year of the Trump White House’s budget blueprint. While this proposal did not offer significant detail, it did include a cut for NIH. Specifically, the proposal would reduce spending for fiscal year 2018 by $5.8 billion compared to the fiscal 2017 level, through a range of reorganizations, consolidations and other changes. That’s short of a $6 billion cut, as Kimmel described it, but it’s pretty close. Fast-forward a few weeks to congressional negotiations over a bill to keep the government funded and avoid a government shutdown. Under the agreement reached by lawmakers, NIH would see a $2 billion increase in its budget over the five-month period of extended federal spending. (That's on top of the funding that was already expected.) According to news reports, the agreement provides an additional $400 million for Alzheimer’s disease and an additional $476 million for the National Cancer Institute, $120 million for the Precision Medicine Initiative, and an additional $110 million for the BRAIN Initiative, which aims to map the human brain. Where Kimmel oversimplified matters is on the numbers. Specifically, the $2 billion increase did not directly replace Trump’s $5.8 billion proposed cut -- the two actions are distinct, since they targeted two different fiscal years. It would have been more accurate to say that the $2 billion increase directly rejected a separate Trump proposal to cut $1.2 billion from NIH for the remainder of fiscal 2017, which concludes at the end of September. (Remember, the $5.8 billion cut was to be for the 2018 fiscal year, not for the rest of 2017.) Indeed, the Trump proposal to cut NIH by $5.8 billion in 2018 is still officially on the table since Congress hasn’t yet acted on spending for 2018. The agreement Kimmel cited only addresses a five-month extension of federal spending. That said, Kimmel’s overarching point -- that Congress effectively rejected Trump’s proposal to cut NIH -- is on target, experts say. Steve Ellis, vice president of the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed that while Kimmel oversimplified the numbers, he added that the talk show host’s ""overall message is accurate. The administration sought cuts and Congress boosted the funding."" And the decision to protect NIH in the budget has been supported not just by Democrats but also by key Republicans, including the chairmen of the two chambers’ health appropriations subcommittees, Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., as well as Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn. ""There is no appetite on the Hill for cutting NIH,"" Stan Collender, a budget expert at the consulting firm Qorvis MSLGROUP, told PolitiFact. Our ruling Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up." Claim: President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion.
"Kimmel said, ""President Trump last month proposed a $6 billion cut in funding to the National Institutes of Health. And thank God our congressmen made a deal last night to not go along with that. They actually increased funding by $2 billion."" Technically, the two funding changes Kimmel referenced are for different fiscal years, so Congress didn’t precisely exchange the increase for Trump’s proposed cut. But Kimmel’s broader point is solid: The move by Congress to increase, rather than decrease, NIH’s funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year is a signal that lawmakers are in no mood to cut NIH’s budget by $5.8 billion once the 2018 spending bills are taken up."

Paragraph: "In her speech to the National Urban League on July 31, Hillary Clinton presented a long list of statistics showing that racial inequality persists in the United States. Among them was this figure: ""African-American children are 500 percent — 500 percent — more likely to die from asthma than white kids."" Clinton claimed that it hit particularly close to home, as it reminded her of her time in the early 1970s working for the Children’s Defense Fund, a nonprofit advocacy group for poor and minority children. That number surprised us, so we decided to see if it was  and, if so, why. Clinton may have underestimated Asthma is a chronic lung disease — an inflammation of the airways that causes coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath. Around 25 million Americans have asthma, and the rate of asthmatics has been steadily increasing since the early 1980s. While most asthmatics function normally, often using inhalers to aid them in their breathing, asthma attacks can present a serious danger, especially in young children. A 2006 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study on childhood asthma data from 1980 to 2005 confirms Clinton’s claim almost verbatim: ""Compared with white children, black children have a 260 percent higher ED (Emergency Department) visit rate, a 250 percent higher hospitalization rate, and a 500 percent higher death rate from asthma."" (Clinton’s campaign confirmed that this was the source she had used.) The report also notes that even though mortality rates from asthma have decreased since 1999 for children in general, no corresponding drop has been seen in the mortality rate of African-American children. There’s also more recent data available that further confirms Clinton’s claim, and even suggests she may have understated the problem. One study from 2014 examines rates of childhood asthma in black and white children, with the most recent data from 2010. Despite making up a much smaller portion of the population, 106 black children died of asthma in 2010, compared to 68 white children. The corresponding rates of death for black and white children respectively are 8.6 per million and 1.2 per million — that means a black child is about 7.2 times more likely to die of asthma than a white child. Even among those children of each race who already had asthma, black children had a mortality rate about 3.5 times higher than white children. Notably, the study also shows that the racial disparity is not as severe for other problems with asthma; while black children have higher rates of asthma attacks, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations, the difference in those cases is not as large as it is with the death rate. Using CDC Wonder, a database of public health information, PolitiFact also checked the data for 2013, the last available year. In that time, 123 black children died of asthma compared to 83 white children. That corresponds to a death rate of 10.1 per million for black children and 1.5 per million for white children, which just about matches the 2010 numbers. The disparity for 2011 and 2012 was actually even greater, with the difference just about ten-fold. Why the racial disparity? According to the CDC, nobody is quite sure. ""Reasons for disparities are not well understood and are the subject of research by numerous investigators in university research centers,"" says a statement from the agency’s Air Pollution and Respiratory Health Branch. However, there are studies that provide a couple of clues. For example, one examination of trends in preventive asthma medication use from 1988 to 2008 found that black and Mexican-American children were less likely to use the medication than white children. Another study from 1997 found that inner-city children are more likely to develop allergies as a result of prolonged exposure to cockroach allergens. Since minorities are more likely to live in urban areas, this may go some way toward explaining higher rates of asthma morbidity and mortality. Our ruling Clinton said, ""African-American children are 500 percent — 500 percent — more likely to die from asthma than white kids."" According to a 2006 study from the CDC, she’s right. According to more recent data, she’s slightly off, but only because she has underestimated the gap: In reality, it appears that black children are seven to eight times as likely to die of asthma as white children." Claim: African-American children are 500 percent more likely to die from asthma than white kids.

"Clinton said, ""African-American children are 500 percent — 500 percent — more likely to die from asthma than white kids."" According to a 2006 study from the CDC, she’s right. According to more recent data, she’s slightly off, but only because she has underestimated the gap: In reality, it appears that black children are seven to eight times as likely to die of asthma as white children."