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.
--------
Question: Paragraph: The number of EU nurses coming to the UK has fallen by 90% since the Brexit vote. The number of nurses and midwives from the EEA joining the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s register fell by 91% from 2015/16 to 2017/18. The number of EU nationals leaving the NHS jumped by 14% in 2017. EU nationals have fallen as a percentage of those joining the NHS. EU nationals made up 8% of new staff (whose nationality was known) joining the NHS in England in the year to June 2018. That compares to 11% in the year to June 2016. It’s possible that the number in June 2016 was unusually high. Claim 1 of 4 Claim: EU nationals have fallen as a percentage of those joining the NHS.

Answer: EU nationals made up 8% of new staff (whose nationality was known) joining the NHS in England in the year to June 2018. That compares to 11% in the year to June 2016. It’s possible that the number in June 2016 was unusually high.


Question: Paragraph: Xuzhou, around 400 miles (640 kilometers) from Beijing, is implementing an “orange alert” pollution control program aimed at “ensuring air quality during the National Day period”, according to a notice reviewed by Reuters and authenticated by industry sources. China’s environment ministry warned on Monday that “unfavorable” weather conditions would lead to a prolonged and widespread outbreak of smog stretching along the eastern coast for around two weeks, and urged local governments throughout affected regions to take swift action. The smog has already forced Beijing and surrounding cities to implement special restrictions on heavy industries, including steel, power and cement, in order to ensure skies remain clear during the Chinese capital’s 70th anniversary parade on Oct. 1. Beijing’s environment bureau said on Wednesday that it had also issued an orange alert, the second highest in a four-tier pollution alarm system, lasting from Thursday until further notice. It will curtail production and restrict traffic. Xuzhou, home to more than a dozen steel firms, started restricting steel output on Wednesday, and will close down all production from Thursday evening. Coking coal producers will also be subject to controls. Restrictions will be placed on freight vehicle deliveries in major industries and on straw burning in rural districts. The city will also work to source its electricity from cleaner and efficient sources over the next few days. In smog-prone Anyang, another major steel producing city in central China’s Henan province, authorities have implemented “red alert” pollution control measures that started on Wednesday, imposing tougher restrictions on industry and transportation. According to a government notice circulated by traders and the local media, Anyang ordered small, independent sintering plants to close on Wednesday, and will shut down all steel production from Thursday evening. Anyang was one of China’s most polluted cities last winter, with concentrations of PM2.5 up 27% over the period. It is located near the Taihang mountain range, which the environment ministry said is currently trapping emissions and channeling them towards Beijing. Claim: China extends pollution curbs ahead of National Day celebrations.

Answer: The heavy industrial city of Xuzhou in the eastern Chinese province of Jiangsu will shut local factories on Thursday as part of efforts to reduce smog ahead of the country’s National Day celebrations next week, the local government said.


Question: Paragraph: "Toilet seats just got political. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, a constitutional lawyer recently elected to Congress, says they’re an intimate example of federal overreach. He name-dropped the familiar fixtures in his March 16, 2013, speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference, known as CPAC. ""We have a federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats,"" he said. Does the long arm of the law extend into your bathroom? Yes. But some constitutional scholars say that’s too far. Plumbing the Constitution Cruz, a Republican, is no stranger to the nation’s founding documents. He argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as the solicitor general of Texas and has written more than 80 briefs for the nation’s highest court. He might like to flush some of its decisions. Here’s what he told his CPAC audience: ""There's the 10th Amendment, something our omnipotent federal government seems to have forgotten all about. The 10th Amendment provides that the powers not given to the federal government are reserved to the states and to the people. ""How did we get a $16.5 trillion national debt? We have a federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats and our light bulbs. We need to get back to the Constitution."" We’ve written plenty about light bulbs (which, yes, are regulated) but hadn’t taken up the question of toilet seats. Here’s the thing about toilet seats and the Constitution. The 10th Amendment reserves powers for the states and the people — except those given to the federal government. And under current interpretations of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause and 14th Amendment, there’s power to federally regulate toilet seats. (Take that, commode!) How? Well, the federal government can regulate consumer products, access to public facilities for people with disabilities and workplace health and safety. Thus: • The Mine Safety & Health Administration says, ""sanitary toilets shall have an attached toilet seat with a hinged lid and a toilet paper holder together with an adequate supply of toilet tissue."" • The Occupational Safety & Health Administration says construction sites with 20 employees or more shall provide ""1 toilet seat and 1 urinal per 40 workers."" • The U.S. Access Board requires most restrooms to have at least one ""accessible"" toilet in buildings covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which means, in part, a toilet seat at a height of 17 inches to 19 inches. Springs to return seats to a lifted position aren’t allowed. Those MSHA and OSHA rules? Cruz’s office says the federal government ""has no business regulating such minutia."" It could be — and has been — worse. Take the Great Horseshoe Seat Scandal of the 1970s. The brand-new Occupational Safety & Health Administration — which draws constitutional authority mainly from the Commerce Clause — had decided to implement a variety of voluntary industry standards as law. And it turned out that plumbers had for decades agreed that public toilets should have open-front, elongated seats rather than the closed rings of home bathroom seats. (Why? Oh, it’s a matter of speculation that’s made us the laughing-stock of Europe, where experts make jokes that the chief of one American lab was too polite to repeat. But it might have something to do with, um, hygiene.) So businesses suddenly faced a federal mandate on seat shape. The ""resultant outcries about picayune government regulations,"" as one newspaper columnist put it, helped land hundreds of OSHA regulations on a to-delete list. The shape of your public toilet seat was no longer federally regulated by the ‘80s. Plumbing fixtures now generally don’t face federal regulation. Instead, manufacturers follow voluntary industry standards, which often get the force of law from state and local governments. But they could. Commodes and the Commerce Clause Meanwhile, the regulations that yet exist — about workplace seat availability and public restroom seat height — strike Cruz as ""regulating down to the minutia"" on issues best left to states and local governments, said his press secretary, Catherine Frazier. He’s right that the federal government ""thinks"" it has that authority, according to constitutional scholars we consulted. Cruz’s former constitutional law professor at Harvard, Laurence Tribe, offered some examples where toilet seats are ""obviously subject to federal regulation"" under settled law: • The commercial sale of toilet seats, like other commodities, in transactions involving an interstate market are subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause. • The provision of adequate toilet facilities to workers in businesses affecting interstate commerce is subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause. • Ensuring that toilet facilities, like others, are made available without regard to race or disability is subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The question of whether the Constitution should be interpreted to grant such power to the federal government exposes a deep rift among experts. Randy Barnett, who represented opponents of the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, argues for a narrower Commerce Clause, as do libertarian scholars such as Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute. A few decisions since the 1990s have gone their way, including the recent ruling that the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate wasn’t justified by the Commerce Clause. The framers ""gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it,"" justices ruled. (The mandate was upheld under the government’s taxing power, instead.) But settled law still says toilet seats are fair game. ""Basically, Cruz is taking an example that sounds silly — toilet seats! — but if you look at the legal basis for the regulatory authority, it's pretty well-established and not all that silly,"" said Kermit Roosevelt, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania. ""This is just political posturing, and Cruz, as a Harvard law grad, presumably knows it."" Our ruling Cruz, railing against modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, said, ""We have a federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats."" While federal attention to toilet seats has dropped since its brief foray into seat shape in the ‘70s, and now mainly addresses toilet access for workers and height for wheelchair users, Cruz is firmly right that the courts, Congress, and executive agencies claim federal power to regulate them. His toilet trivia is . Editor's note: We updated this item on March 26, 2013, to clarify that the U.S. Access Board requires most restrooms in ADA-covered buildings to have at least one accessible toilet." Claim: We have a federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats.

Answer:
"Cruz, railing against modern interpretations of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, said, ""We have a federal government that thinks they have the authority to regulate our toilet seats."" While federal attention to toilet seats has dropped since its brief foray into seat shape in the ‘70s, and now mainly addresses toilet access for workers and height for wheelchair users, Cruz is firmly right that the courts, Congress, and executive agencies claim federal power to regulate them. His toilet trivia is True. Editor's note: We updated this item on March 26, 2013, to clarify that the U.S. Access Board requires most restrooms in ADA-covered buildings to have at least one accessible toilet."