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.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: "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." Claim: "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."

Output: 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.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job. Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences. Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all. Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine. No disease-mongering of melanoma. Several independent sources cited. The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug. Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.”  Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market. The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained. It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release. Claim: Drugs Show Promise Slowing Advanced Melanoma

Output: The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:  “notable progress” “do not cure” “might add two to several moths to expected lifespans” “To be sure, more than half of patients with metastatic melanoma would not be helped all that much by either drug.”   Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Speaking to a statewide television audience Tuesday night, the state’s new Democratic governor outlined a broad agenda that includes protecting health-care coverage, tackling criminal-justice reform, ending cuts to higher education and embracing new gaming-related revenues. Beshear, who made support for public schools the hallmark of his successful 2019 campaign, said education is the key to breaking cycles of poverty in the state. He called for bipartisan cooperation on education and other issues as Kentucky embarks on a new era of divided government. “It’s time to come together, all of us, in support of public education,” he said. “This is a new opportunity, a new start with a new governor, where we can all pledge to lift up our communities by supporting and investing in our public schools. We can wipe the slate clean, and we can move forward in support of public education together.” Beshear said the budget plan he submits to the legislature later this month will include his campaign pledge for a $2,000 across-the-board pay raise for teachers. “These teachers deserve a raise,” he said. “They are on the front lines of every problem we face as a commonwealth — from family-member addiction, to hunger, to the need for better jobs. And right now, we face a teacher shortage that threatens the education of our children.” Beshear made no mention of his predecessor, former Gov. Matt Bevin, as he touted the need for a new era of civility. It was a contrast to his former Republican rival’s caustic brand of policies. The governor’s approximately 35-minute speech was greeted with polite applause throughout. Beshear pledged to “embrace” higher education as part of his “education-first budget.”″ He also promised to support fully funding the state’s public pension obligations — another big-ticket pledge. He urged lawmakers to take on the health-care issue as part of the road map for a brighter future for the state. “That requires that our Kentucky families don’t have to worry about losing health care coverage because of a preexisting condition,” he said. “I hear members of both parties say those very words. So this session, let’s pass a state law ensuring no one can lose coverage in this state, ever again, based on a preexisting condition.” He urged lawmakers to pass legislation to curb the costs of insulin to help the approximately 530,000 Kentuckians with diabetes. He also embraced legislation to end surprise medical billings. Beshear stressed the need for new revenues to meet the state’s growing needs, endorsing a sports betting bill already introduced. He made another long-shot pitch for legalizing casino gambling — a campaign pledge that appears to face strong resistance in the legislature. “Right now we are watching more than $500 million in gaming revenue go across the border to states like Indiana, Ohio and Illinois,” he said. “It’s time to stop that flow.”  Beshear urged lawmakers to pass criminal-justice reforms to reverse skyrocketing corrections costs that soak up money that could go for education and health care. Such a package should reduce prison populations, reduce repeat offending rates and provide “meaningful” addiction treatment, he said. It also needs to “consolidate and not expand our state prison institutions,” he said. The governor also called for equal pay for women and made a pitch to make Kentucky a leader in agriculture technology. He embraced speeding up the Mountain Parkway project in eastern Kentucky. The Tuesday evening event was the first of two major speeches the governor will deliver to lawmakers this month. Beshear will present his budget plans to lawmakers in late January. Kentucky entered an era of divided government  when Beshear was elected governor last year. He has stressed the need for civility as he and lawmakers work on state policy. The governor continued that theme Tuesday evening, telling lawmakers: “Let me be clear, every moment we focus on partisanship, every moment we focus on national divisions, we fail to address the reality before us.” That reality, he said, includes Kentucky’s dismal rankings in per-capita income, child abuse, education and disease rates,  The legislature’s top two leaders — House Speaker David Osborne and Senate President Robert Stivers — later praised the governor’s tone but said his agenda ultimately will be decided by the details of his proposals. “I think at some point in time, we’re going to have to dispense with the pleasantries and talk about governing.” Osborne said. Stivers added: “It’s now time to start having real discussions about real problems and finding real solutions. And that will be the key to this, to see if his rhetoric will be matched by his actions.” Claim: Kentucky governor reaffirms support for teacher pay raise.


Output: Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear reaffirmed his support for a teachers’ pay raise and made a pitch to overhaul a criminal-justice system soaking up too much of the state’s money as he delivered his first State of the Commonwealth speech to the Republican-dominated legislature.