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 Q]: Paragraph: "Campaigning for president in the liberal oasis of Madison, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont rose to the defense of marijuana. Critical of the nation's war on drugs, Sanders said the lives of millions of Americans have been ""ruined"" because they got a police record for possessing marijuana. ""Today, under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin. That is nuts,"" Sanders declared March 26, 2016, 10 days before he defeated Hillary Clinton in Wisconsin's Democratic primary. ""Now people can argue -- although I suspect in this audience there may not be much of an argument -- about the pluses and minuses of marijuana,"" he said, drawing cheers from some of the thousands in attendance at the Alliant Energy Center. ""But everybody knows marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Sanders then noted he had introduced legislation to remove marijuana from the Controlled Substance Act because possession of it ""should not be a federal crime."" We found that Sanders wasn't smoking anything funny in claiming that both marijuana and heroin are Schedule I drugs, which he has continued to say while campaigning in New York and Pennsylvania. But his claim is somewhat misleading: That classification is based on a drug's acceptable medical use and the drug's abuse or dependency potential, not on criminal statutes. The law The Controlled Substance Act, adopted in 1970, uses five schedules to classify drugs and narcotics by medical use and potential to incite substance abuse. On the low end is Schedule V, which includes substances such as cough medicines with small amounts of the narcotic codeine. At the high end is Schedule I, which lists the ""most dangerous"" drugs -- those that have ""no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."" Marijuana is stronger than when the Controlled Substance Act was adopted (as ex-GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina correctly stated). Nevertheless Schedule II includes some drugs often considered more dangerous than marijuana. Here's a look at some of the drugs in the two schedules: Schedule I Schedule II Marijuana Cocaine Heroin Methamphetamine LSD Methadone Ecstasy OxyContin Peyote Fentanyl The Huffington Post in April 2016, citing figures from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said the nation recorded no marijuana overdose deaths in 2015. Likewise, there were zero in 2014. It's possible marijuana might soon be moved off of Schedule I. A week after Sanders' speech, the Washington Post reported that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration said it hopes to decide by July 2016 whether to change the federal status of marijuana. Now let's get to Sanders' implication that the schedule relates to criminal law enforcement. Marijuana treated differently Distribution, manufacturing or possession of a Schedule I substance is indeed a federal offense. Additionally, marijuana being on Schedule I, drug policy experts told us, makes it more difficult for licensed dealers in states that have legalized marijuana or medical marijuana to get bank accounts and to deduct business expenses on their taxes. And the classification makes it more difficult for researchers to study marijuana in clinical trials. But judges come down harder on heroin possession than marijuana possession. And when it comes to enforcement of criminal statutes, the federal government to some extent has looked the other way when it comes to marijuana. As PolitiFact National stated in a related fact check: Schedule I substances cannot legally be used for medical purposes, however, 20 states and the District of Columbia have passed laws legalizing medical marijuana. In 2009, the administration of President Barack Obama, a Democrat, told federal law enforcement agencies to stop targeting medical marijuana dispensaries, signaling a change from the approach of Obama's predecessor, Republican President George W. Bush. Similarly, in 2013, the Department of Justice said it would not target new laws in Colorado and Washington legalizing recreational marijuana. While Sanders equates the handling or marijuana and heroin, it's difficult to imagine the federal government not enforcing the law if states started legalizing heroin. Our rating Criticizing the nation's war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn't treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification, our rating is . Claim: "Under the federal Controlled Substance Act, marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."
[EX A]: "Criticizing the nation's war on drugs, Sanders says that under the federal Controlled Substance Act, ""marijuana is listed in the same Schedule I as heroin,"" even though ""marijuana is not a killer drug like heroin."" Like heroin, marijuana is indeed listed as a Schedule I drug, the federal designation given to drugs considered the most dangerous. But at least under the Obama administration, the federal government doesn't treat it as one under the law. For a statement that is accurate but needs clarification.

[EX Q]: 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, preventionand 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 A]: "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 Q]: Paragraph: "The mass shooting in Las Vegas prompted former Democratic Congressman Steve Israel of New York to write that these horrific events have little impact on public policy. In a New York Times op-ed, Israel walked through a list of shootings -- the murder of 26 children and adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in 2012, the June 2016 mass shooting in an Orlando nightclub, and others -- and noted that despite the hand-wringing after each one, nothing changed. Israel said Democrats were unable to enact reforms, including ""our attempts to rescind the infamous Dickey Amendment, which prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from even researching the relationship between gun violence and public health."" ""The result?"" Israel wrote Oct. 2. ""The government can't study gun violence but is spending $400,000 analyzing the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits."" There are two elements to sift through here: Does the Dickey Amendment block government research into gun violence and public health? And is Washington studying Swedish massage on rabbits? In 1996, with strong support from the National Rifle Association, Congress included an amendment by Rep. Jay Dickey, R-Ark., in its omnibus spending bill. The amendment said ""none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."" In the same bill, Congress pulled $2.8 million aimed at gun injury research and assigned it elsewhere in the CDC. Ever since, Washington and the CDC have steered clear of funding research that could run afoul of that amendment. Israel said the provision prevents government-funded studies of the ties between guns and public health, but plenty of people say the rule is not binding. Dickey himself joined with the former head of the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Mark Rosenberg to challenge that long-held assumption. ""We believe strongly that funding for research into gun-violence prevention should be dramatically increased,"" they wrote in a 2016 public letter. ""We do not see the congressional language against using federal funds 'to promote or advocate gun control' as a barrier to this research."" An article on the Harvard Law Petrie-Flom Center blog argued that the amendment bars research aimed at promoting gun control and not all research. U.S. Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., echoed that point in a letter to the CDC, saying the meaning had been ""misconstrued."" But that belief had its own consequences. ""As a result, public health researchers at the CDC and other federal agencies have been discouraged from conducting scientific research on gun violence,"" Carper wrote March 17, 2016. ""Although the CDC self-directs a portion of its nearly $6.2 billion annual budget to a wide variety of intra- and extramural research, the CDC has been reluctant to devote funding to gun violence research without a specific appropriation from Congress."" Carper offered proof that the Dickey Amendment can co-exist with government gun violence studies. He noted that in 2015, the CDC assessed the causes of a rise in gun violence in Wilmington, Del. In general, the impact of the Dickey Amendment is more political than legal. Research could move forward, but without an explicit signoff from Congress, there's been limited activity. After the 2012 Newtown slayings, President Barack Obama directed the CDC to conduct or fund research into the causes of gun violence. The impact was modest. ""As far as I can tell the CDC still correctly believes that gun research, or even mentioning guns, is too hot to handle,"" said director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center David Hemenway. Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research director Daniel Webster also said there's been no new funding from CDC or the National Institutes of Health. Rosenberg told us, ""The research scientists at CDC are very anxious to do this research, but the recent directors of CDC have been willing to let this eminently solvable problem fester because they fear that the NRA will prod Congress into cutting public health programs that are viewed as more central and critical to CDC's mission."" As for the $400,000 spent on studying the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits that Israel mentioned, yes, the government did that. (The exact amount was closer to $387,000.) It gave the Ohio State University Sports Medicine Center money to build a small device that mimics the action of Swedish massage to see if the treatment reduced pain and inflammation. Rabbits were the test subjects. The treatment helped, by the way. Researchers found that with the right mix of force, duration and frequency, there was ""maximal recovery of muscle and joint function."" However, there's an issue of timing with Israel's statement. He said the government is currently spending money on this research. In fact, the study ended in 2014. Israel spokesman Harrison Feuer didn't argue that detail. ""The larger point that Congressman Israel was looking to accurately make is that the government has funded studies into various endeavors that are less impactful than guns on public health,"" Feuer said. Israel said the Dickey Amendment prevents the CDC from researching the relationship between gun violence and public health. As a matter of law, it only prevents money going toward research aimed at promoting gun control. But as a matter of politics, that distinction is murky, and as a result, research has been limited. Israel's point about Swedish massage on rabbits is off on the timing, but right on the substance. Israel's statement has some technical flaws, but the broader thrust is accurate." Claim: "Steve Israel Says the Dickey Amendment ""prevents the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from even researching the relationship between gun violence and public health. ... The government can't study gun violence but is spending $400,000 analyzing the effects of Swedish massages on rabbits."
[EX A]:
Israel said the Dickey Amendment prevents the CDC from researching the relationship between gun violence and public health. As a matter of law, it only prevents money going toward research aimed at promoting gun control. But as a matter of politics, that distinction is murky, and as a result, research has been limited. Israel's point about Swedish massage on rabbits is off on the timing, but right on the substance. Israel's statement has some technical flaws, but the broader thrust is accurate.