Given a paragraph, generate a claim that is supported by the given paragraph. 1) The claim must contain information from within the paragraph. 2) A sentence within the paragraph can be used as a claim. 3) The claim should not have contradictions within the paragraph. 4) The claim should be at most one sentence long.

Example Input: "We don’t know yet if the Ebola scare will help either party or be an afterthought in the midterm elections, but liberal blogger Doug Muder argued that confronting Ebola shows that it makes sense to vote Democratic. For Muder, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul is the poster child for a distinct partisan contrast. ""Ebola points out why we need a fully funded government,"" Muder wrote. ""When there’s no immediate threat of disease, government agencies like the CDC look like bureaucratic waste. When Rand Paul put out a ‘Tea Party budget’ in 2011, it included a big cut in the CDC, and virtually no explanation as to how this would affect its mission."" In this fact-check, we look at whether Paul proposed a ""big cut"" in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Muder had blogged about Paul’s budget in 2011. Back then, Muder asked how the CDC would be able to fulfill its mission if, as Paul wanted, its budget was cut by $1.165 billion. We went back to Paul’s original budget documents. One posted January 2011 called for the $1.165 billion reduction that Muder mentioned. Paul then assembled a more complete budget plan in May 2011. It would cut the CDC budget by 20 percent from its Fiscal Year 2008 levels. Depending on whether you include special funds to evaluate federal health programs, Congress appropriated between $6.049 billion and $6.375 billion for the CDC in FY 2008. So Rand’s 20 percent reduction amounts to either $1.209 billion or $1.275 billion in cuts. That’s slightly more than Muder described. Paul wrote in his plan, ""The center is often mentioned in media reports highlighting their lavish accommodations. For example, in 2005, the CDC built a conference center for $106 million, complete with large-screen plasma TVs. They also spent tens of millions of dollars on state-of-the-art anti-gravity seating for employees, as well as luxury furniture. Taxpayers can no longer afford the luxury working atmosphere of the CDC."" That budget plan remains posted on the website randpaul2016.com, Paul's Senate re-election website. Brian Darling, a Paul spokesman, agreed that the senator has proposed these cuts in the past, but said that funding and the ability to fight Ebola don’t inevitably go hand-in-hand. ""If you look closely at the CDC budget, there are funds that have been wasted on projects that have nothing to do with disease prevention,"" Darling said. Darling then noted that Congress has been at least as supportive of the CDC as the Obama administration. Darling said that in an omnibus spending bill, Congress appropriated $6.9 billion for the CDC, about $240 million more than the administration requested. Darling highlighted another $88 million for Ebola in a continuing resolution bill approved in September. However, neither action undercuts Muder’s point, and Paul voted against both measures. It’s important to remember that those bills doled out money across many government agencies, not specifically for the CDC alone. Sometimes reasonable people can quibble over whether a cut is ""big"" or not. In this case, Paul himself called his cuts ""serious"" in a 2011 op-ed he penned for the Wall Street Journal. ""My proposal, not surprisingly, has been greeted skeptically in Washington, where serious spending cuts are a rarity,"" Paul wrote. ""But it is a modest proposal when measured against the size of our mounting debt."" Our ruling Muder said that in 2011 Sen. Paul proposed cutting the CDC budget by $1.165 billion. Budget documents confirm that. In fact, Paul’s most detailed budget that year would have trimmed CDC spending by slightly more, about $1.2 billion. While the Senate approved two broad spending measures to fund the CDC in 2014, Paul voted against both."
Example Output: "Doug Muder Says Sen. Rand Paul’s 2011 budget ""included a big cut in the CDC."

Example Input: As the 2016 school year and the election primary cycles wound to a close in California, they inevitably congealed into political brouhahas that entangled even young students. One such controversy involved the case of third-grader Logan Autry and his “Make America Great Again” hat: Third-grader Logan Autry, 9, said officials at Powers-Ginsburg Elementary School in Fresno told him to remove his “Make America Great Again” hat because it could stir “negative emotions” in other children. The red baseball cap with the phrase printed in white capital letters has become almost synonymous with the campaign of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. “The principal told me to take it off, and I still didn’t take it off,” Autry [said]. “And she said it was against the dress code to wear the hat, but I looked in the dress code and it was not against it.” The Fresno Unified School District’s dress codes for the 2015-2016 school year are fairly easy to track down online, and they haven’t changed much (if at all) from those of previous years: Any apparel, hair style, cosmetic or jewelry, even if not specifically mentioned below, which creates a safety concern, draws undue attention to the wearer, or tends to distract from the educational process is prohibited unless addressed elsewhere in this regulation. Additionally, the following items are specifically prohibited: What many stories didn’t mention was that Logan Autry wore the hat for several days before the school, seeing it as a potential distraction, intervened and told him to remove it: Our job as educators is to facilitate a safe learning environment where we encourage robust conversations of diverse and thoughts. We are proud that in this case, our school achieved that goal by allowing the student to wear his hat for several days. However, it is also our responsibility to take precautions when the discourse begins to impact our school climate and interrupt school operations. Logan told reporters that wearing the hat at school is his First Amendment right. However, the right to free speech is interpreted (by courts and others) somewhat differently in public schools than outside them. The National Coalition Against Censorship has a rundown of how the First Amendment is interpreted within the classroom: Recent Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the right to free speech and expression can sometimes be subordinated to achieve legitimate educational goals. (See discussions of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, Bethel School District v. Fraser.) A school is not comparable to a public park where anyone can stand on a soapbox, or a bulletin board on which anyone can post a notice. While students and teachers do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate” (Tinker v. Des Moines), speech is not quite as free inside educational institutions as outside. This does not mean that students and teachers have no First Amendment rights at school. Quite the contrary. But within the educational setting, the right to free speech is implemented in ways that do not interfere with schools’ educational mission. Students cannot claim, for instance, that they have the right to have incorrect answers to an algebra quiz accepted as correct, nor can teachers claim a right to teach anything they choose. Other quotes from Logan present a fuller picture of the third-grader’s political views: He already has the shirt and tie down, and practices speeches about Trump on the playground. “I’ve told them his policies on illegal immigration, and our second amendment, and our first amendment and all of our amendments that need to be protected which are not going to be an amendment at all if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders gets elected,” said Autry.
Example Output: An elementary school in Fresno, California, forced a third-grader to remove a cap bearing Donald Trump's campaign slogan.

Example Input: In January 2018, Rep. Joe Kennedy III attracted scrutiny from both left-wing and right-wing observers, after he was designated to give the official Democratic response to President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address in January 2018. On 28 January 2018, this meme appeared, making claims about the Massachusetts Congressman’s purported links to the pharmaceutical industry, and his record on several major issues:  This is Joe. Pharmaceutical companies have given Joe $348K since 2011. Joe has $434K of stock in a company charging $1,000 per pill for a live-saving drug. Joe opposes legal marijuana and universal healthcare legislation. Don’t be like Joe. Pharmaceutical industry donations An article from GritPost.com elaborated on these claims: Rep. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) might be pharma’s favorite Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives, given that he’s received more than $57,000 from the pharmaceutical/health products industry in this current election cycle alone. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, that’s approximately four times more than pharma’s average contribution to House Democrats. Over the course of his short Congressional career, Kennedy has received more than $348,000 since 2011. The source of these claims about contributions to Kennedy is the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, DC-based non-profit that tracks political donations on the web site Open Secrets. The figures in the article are accurate; the industry’s contributions to Kennedy total $348,077 over the course of his six-year career as a politician. Investments in pharmaceuticals The Grit Post article and the meme also allege Kennedy had personal investments in a controversial pharmaceutical company. Grit Post writes: As the Boston Globe reported last year, Rep. Kennedy has more than $434,000 invested in Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead is the manufacturer of life-saving hepatitis C drug Sovaldi — which Gilead recently increased to $1,000 per pill, or $84,000 for a treatment. While it’s true Kennedy has investments in Gilead, this claim is slightly misleading and out of date. In May 2016, the Boston Globe reported that the Congressman had “earned stock value of up to $434,999 from investments in Gilead Sciences Inc” and furthermore: His holdings in Gilead, as of the end of 2015, totaled between $180,004 and $450,000, according to financial disclosures. So actually, Kennedy’s investments in Gilead could have been as low as $180,004 at the time of the Boston Globe article in May 2016. The Globe was careful to point out that members of Congress are not required to provide exact figures for their personal investments and assets, but rather ranges. Grit Post left out this detail. In any event, Kennedy provided a more up-to-date financial disclosure at the end of 2016, which showed his investments in Gilead by then totalled between $80,003 and $200,000. Financial disclosures for 2017 have not yet been published. Whatever the exact amounts involved, Kennedy’s investment in Gilead has been controversial largely because the company sells Solvadi, its brand name for the drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat Hepatitis C. As Grit Post points out, Gilead Sciences has attracted criticism for the high price of Solvadi which is $1,000 per pill or $84,000 for a course of treatment. Kennedy’s investment is part of a trust fund managed by a financial adviser. Craig Holman, from the advocacy group Public Citizen, told the Globe in 2016 that the profits Kennedy and the company were making were “harming many of the citizens of Massachusetts.” According to Open Secrets, 19 members of Congress (as well as Donald Trump) held shares in Gilead Sciences in 2015. Stance on marijuana The Grit Post meme’s claim that Kennedy opposes marijuana legalization is accurate. While the national conversation has shifted to discuss recreational marijuana’s legalization, over the years many leaders have come to voice support for the medical uses for marijuana. However, Kennedy not only opposes recreational use, but he has a record of voting against measures to protect and enhance access to medical marijuana. In 2015, Kennedy was one of 10 Democrats who sided with a Republican majority to pass a bill that would—among many other things—restrict funding for states that wanted to legalize marijuana. The bill died in Senate. Grit Post also correctly pointed out that Kennedy, in a 2016 interview, said “I don’t think marijuana should be legalized.” Stance on universal healthcare The meme’s claim that Kennedy opposes “universal healthcare legislation” requires closer examination. In September 2017, Kennedy expressed tentative support for a single-payer healthcare system, but hesitated to support bills then before the House of Representatives and Senate that would have expanded Medicare. At the time, Kennedy told Boston Public Radio the bills were “100 percent right on the value that they’re trying to enshrine into federal law — that healthcare is a right in this country, not a privilege to be enjoyed by the few…” However, he said there were “details” in the House bill (introduced by Democratic Rep. John Conyers) with which he was ‘struggling.’ When pressed, Kennedy said he supported universal healthcare, but said a single-payer system (funded by taxes and administered by the government) was “a way that we could get there, and that’s great, but I think that the critical piece to this is ensuring that everybody gets access to quality, affordable, accessible healthcare…”
Example Output:
Over the course of his career, Democratic Congressman Joe Kennedy has received $348,000 in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.