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.

Ex Input:
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.

Ex Output:
"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."


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "Not applicable. No discussion of costs, but we think it’s common knowledge that these supplements are inexpensive. We have problems with the way this was handled. The subhead said, ""32 percent reduced odds seen in postmenopausal women."" But readers need to know 32% of what? It also explained that the study surveyed ""women who were between the ages of 50 and 76 and all past menopause."" But risk rises with age. So baseline risk in a 50 year-old is different than that in a 76-year old. So we would have preferred seeing absolute numbers for those in their 50s, 60s and 70s to make the message more meaningful. Not applicable. No discussion of harms, but this is not a serious issue in this case. We’re very pleased to see HealthDay include the line: ""we should not draw any conclusions about a causal relationship."" The study was ""observational"" only, and not a randomized trial that compared the use of fish oil with a group not using fish oil and the effect on cancer rates."" And the independent expert saying, ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" (For comparison, an ABC News headline read, ""Breast Cancer Risk Lowered by Fish Oil."" That is far too definitive, and, thus, inaccurate. The story also touched on how squishy was the evidence when it quoted the researcher: ""She could not quantify the amount of fish oil supplements consumed, because ""current use"" was defined as any amount taken by a woman. ""Most women used it four to seven days a week. We don’t know how much,"" she noted"" No overt disease mongering. An important comment was made by an independent expert from the American Cancer Society: ""The lower risk of breast cancer among women taking fish oil supplements could be due to chance."" There could have been at least one line about other research looking at lowering the risk of breast cancer. The availability of fish oil supplements is not in question. The story quoted the researcher saying ""while studies examining the link between consuming fish or omega-3 fatty acids and breast cancer risk have produced inconsistent results, this is the first study that suggested a connection between fish oil supplements and reduced breast cancer risk."" It does not appear  that the story relied solely on a news release." Claim: Fish Oil Supplements Linked to Lower Risk of Breast Cancer: Study

Ex Output:
You can read the full review below. But we don’t want to overlook what a big thing it is to see improvement in the two areas already noted. Keep it up, HealthDay. Breast cancer risk is not a one-size-fits-all story. It’s age-dependent. And this story should have pushed the researchers for age-specific breakdowns.


Ex Input:
Paragraph: "State lawmakers have left Albany for the year without taking up a bill that would extend the statute of limitations for child sex abuse victims. Current law allows those victims to bring criminal charges against their alleged abuser until the age of 23. The Child Victims Act would extend the age to 28 and create a one-year revival period for past cases regardless of when they happened. Victims could also bring civil cases until age 50. The bill passed in the State Assembly with the support of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, but was blocked by Republicans in the State Senate. Comedian Samantha Bee took aim at the Senate on her weekly late-night talk show last week. ""I don't want you to think the New York Senate is anti-child,"" Bee said. ""This session they passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Anyone who does not follow New York state politics closely may be surprised by the claim. Those inside what’s known as the ‘Albany bubble’ were most likely not. But Bee is known for comedy. Some may have seen her claim as satirical. Were those bills a joke, or was Bee talking about legislation that actually passed the Senate? Snowmobile racing The Senate passed a bill in March that would allow people under the age of 18 to compete in organized snowmobile racing events without a safety certificate from the state. Current law requires anyone under the age of 18 to take a state-approved safety course before they ride a snowmobile. Anyone under 14 has to also be supervised by an adult when riding. The regulations do not apply if the minor rides on land owned by their parent or guardian. The bill would throw out those rules as long as the minor is participating in a snowmobile racing event. The bill, sponsored by Republican Sen. Betty Little of the North Country, passed the 63-member Senate with 49 votes. The Assembly did not take up the bill. Looser hunting restrictions Another bill, passed by the Senate in June, would allow 12-year-olds to get a universal hunting license by lowering the age for some hunting activities. You can start hunting when you are 12 in New York, but certain restrictions remain until the hunter is 14. The bill would drop the age from 14 to 12 for someone to participate in muzzle-loading season, obtain muzzle-loading privileges, hunt with a crossbow, and hunt big game. The child would have to be supervised by a parent or youth mentor. The sponsor, Republican Joseph Griffo, says in the bill’s memo it’s intended to give parents the opportunity to teach children about hunting at a younger age. The bill passed the Senate with 53 votes. The Assembly did not take it up. Begging for money The third bill targets people who use children to panhandle on the street. It’s already illegal for someone to use a child to beg for money but the crime is under the state’s arts and cultural affairs law instead of the penal law. This bill, sponsored by Democratic Sen. Jeffrey Klein of the Bronx, would transfer the crime to the penal law and strengthen the penalty for repeat offenders. The bill says someone cannot ask or allow a child under 16 to beg for money or receive payment for ""picking rags, or collecting cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" That provision has actually been in state law since 1971. It’s part of a broader law that bans children from doing several things for money. Among the more interesting: children cannot be employed as tightrope walkers and cannot receive money for displaying a physical deformity. The Klein bill to move the crime to the penal law passed the Senate in June with 55 votes. The bill was not taken up in the Assembly. Our ruling Comedian Samantha Bee said the New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Each of the bills is real and passed the Senate this year. Her claim is ." Claim: "The New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."

Ex Output:

"Comedian Samantha Bee said the New York State Senate ""passed legislation allowing minors to race snowmobiles, get their own hunting licenses, and not be employed gathering or picking rags, cigar stumps, or collecting bones."" Each of the bills is real and passed the Senate this year. Her claim is True. "