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: Researchers set out to determine what killed coral near the $205 million dredge work at the port, which was done to make way for the larger ships sailing through an expanded Panama Canal to bring cargo to South Florida. Their study, published this month in the online journal PeerJ, compared work done in the channel to nearby coral. It puts at odds two governmental agencies that clashed over the dredge. Environmentalists had long worried that that $205 million dredging would damage the coral. The Miami Herald (http://hrld.us/2gFJYNi ) reports the Corps contended a disease outbreak was responsible. State environmental regulators argued that mud stirred up by the dredge or leaked by a barge as it ferried sediment offshore smothered coral. The research team studied pictures taken before, during and after the dredge and said sediment spread across an area about 14 times bigger than the Corps permit allowed for. The study found that warm temperatures in the summer of 2014 triggered widespread bleaching and disease and the coral — stressed by the sediment — died in larger numbers than nearby coral. The project deepened the port’s channel by 6 feet, making it 52-feet deep. It completes a $1 billion makeover that includes a new tunnel at the port. “We now know the Corps dramatically underestimated both the severity and the geographic extent of the sediment impacts on the reef,” said Miami Waterkeeper Rachel Silverstein, whose group joined other conservationists in a legal fight to clean up the dredge. “The monitoring and the protocols that were supposed to protect this reef during the dredge clearly failed and this study is providing peer-reviewed, statistically valid evidence showing that impacts from the dredging resulted in widespread impacts.” Beginning in the summer of 2015, the fisheries service repeatedly warned the Corps that damage appeared to be more widespread and the agency was in danger of violating its permit. The Herald reports that the Corps also failed to provide updated surveys of the work, which prompted the fisheries service to issue a sharp letter accusing the agency of selectively choosing “certain results to downplay the permanent effects” of the dredge. Corps officials said the study used limited data and failed to distinguish between the types of sediment that buried coral during the dredge. “Drawing broad scale conclusions based on limited data is very misleading and not good science,” Corps spokeswoman Susan Jackson told the Herald via email. She said the agency is “committed to understanding potential impacts” and has expanded monitoring efforts, which include cameras on the ocean floor to record conditions. The researchers conclude that the study highlights the need to be more careful when dredging near sensitive reefs and should serve as a warning for the upcoming $374 million expansion at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale. ___ Information from: The Miami Herald, http://www.herald.com
Example Output: Study: Mud stirred up during PortMiami dredge killed coral.

Example Input: "The Republican Party of Texas marveled — not in a good way — at an admission of sorts by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the long-stalled health care overhaul before Congress. According to an e-mail the GOP sent Friday, Pelosi said “the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.” Talk about a banana-peel moment. Did Pelosi improbably denigrate her party’s promised legislation and say people can find out what’s in it after it passes? GOP spokesman Bryan Preston pointed us to the text of Pelosi’s March 9 speech in Washington to the National Association of Counties. We learned, for starters, that while the Texas GOP thinks the legislation is terrible, Pelosi clearly doesn't. Instead, Pelosi's remarks celebrate aspects such as a ban on denying health coverage because of a pre-existing conditions, “robust support for public health infrastructure,” more spending on community health centers and reductions in uncompensated care by hospitals. Pelosi also says in the speech that the plan won't require anyone to pay a deductible for preventive health care doctor visits. She summarizes: “It’s going to be very, very exciting.” Yet there’s heft to the GOP's claim that Pelosi said the legislation has to pass so people can find out what’s in it. Pelosi adds: “But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” Pelosi's words stirred critics from the right including Marguerite Higgins, a senior editorial services associate at The Heritage Foundation. In a blog, Higgins named the moment the video of the week and called Pelosi’s statement a “stunning demonstration of political condescension.” Separately, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly offered this interpretation of Pelosi's comment: ""She meant there was so much talk about process (in Congress) that people have lost sight of what’s actually in the bill. Once it’s passed, we can remind them of all the good things that are in it."" Capital fusses aside, we wondered if Pelosi spoke accurately; will the plan need to pass before people know what's in it? We called the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation, which has posted side-by-side comparisons online of health care plans approved by the House and Senate. Its spokesman, Craig Palosky, reminded us that Congress posts the entire legislation online. Of course, that's not to say the final deal is settled — or, it stands to reason, open to public view. Palosky declined to comment precisely on Pelosi's forecast, saying her comment seemed more about politics than policy. ""It’s not our role to police such comments,"" he said. ""If you want to know what members of Congress are doing, you have to speak to members of Congress.” His nudge led us to call U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, among a handful of physicians in Congress and an opponent to the Democrats' proposal. Burgess told us it's often true that the ins and outs of legislation aren't widely known until after a measure passes into law; that held true, for instance, for the Republican-steered measure providing government aid toward prescription drugs for seniors. Pelosi's ""right,"" Burgess said, though ""I don’t think that’s a good strategy (to declare as much). I wouldn’t recommend anyone actually broadcasting that."" So how does the GOP's statement shake out? The party's e-mail errs when it makes it sound as if Pelosi thinks the health-care measure is terrible. It's very much the opposite. But it accurately quotes Pelosi as saying people will find out what's in the plan after it passes."
Example Output: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said this week that the Democrats have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what's in it.

Example Input: On 13 May 2016, the web site Young Conservatives published an article reporting that President Obama had decreed that all American schools must make all bathrooms transgender or face lawsuits and potentially lose federal funding: President Obama decided to yet again defy the constitutional limits placed on his powers and released a directive stating public schools must allow transgenders to use the bathroom of their choice. Well, the great state of Texas is saying no thanks and accusing the president of blackmail. Apparently Obama doesn’t understand that transgender restrooms are a 10th Amendment issue, meaning it’s left up to the states to decide how to handle it and the federal government has no jurisdiction in the matter at all. The ensuing media (and social media) flurries ended up obfuscating a number of details of the issue, with most versions holding that President Obama “decreed” that all schools must immediately implement such policies, lest they be dragged into court and lose funding. As usual, however, the truth was much less outrageous than the rumors. On 13 May 2016, the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights and the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division issued a joint “Dear Colleague” letter [PDF] that included “significant guidance” to schools about civil rights protections for transgender students under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. The letter detailed federal guidelines for transgender students and bathroom use and provided definitions for the terms “Gender identity,” “Sex assigned at birth,” “Transgender,” and “Gender transition”: Schools across the country strive to create and sustain inclusive, supportive, safe, and nondiscriminatory communities for all students. In recent years, we have received an increasing number of questions from parents, teachers, principals, and school superintendents about civil rights protections for transgender students. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) and its implementing regulations prohibit sex discrimination in educational programs and activities operated by recipients of Federal financial assistance. This prohibition encompasses discrimination based on a student’s gender identity, including discrimination based on a student’s transgender status. This letter summarizes a school’s Title IX obligations regarding transgender students and explains how the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) evaluate a school’s compliance with these obligations. ED and DOJ (the Departments) have determined that this letter is significant guidance. This guidance does not add requirements to applicable law, but provides information and examples to inform recipients about how the Departments evaluate whether covered entities are complying with their legal obligations. If you have questions or are interested in commenting on this guidance, please contact ED[.] Accompanying this letter is a separate document from ED’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Examples of Policies and Emerging Practices for Supporting Transgender Students. The examples in that document are taken from policies that school districts, state education agencies, and high school athletics associations around the country have adopted to help ensure that transgender students enjoy a supportive and nondiscriminatory school environment. Schools are encouraged to consult that document for practical ways to meet Title IX’s requirements. Schools were informed that failure to supply legally entitled students with the necessary accommodations could constitute a violation of the obligations of federally funded schools: As a condition of receiving Federal funds, a school agrees that it will not exclude, separate, deny benefits to, or otherwise treat differently on the basis of sex any person in its educational programs or activities unless expressly authorized to do so under Title IX or its implementing regulations. The Departments treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations. This means that a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity. The Departments’ interpretation is consistent with courts’ and other agencies’ interpretations of Federal laws prohibiting sex discrimination. The Departments interpret Title IX to require that when a student or the student’s parent or guardian, as appropriate, notifies the school administration that the student will assert a gender identity that differs from previous representations or records, the school will begin treating the student consistent with the student’s gender identity. Under Title IX, there is no medical diagnosis or treatment requirement that students must meet as a prerequisite to being treated consistent with their gender identity. Because transgender students often are unable to obtain identification documents that reflect their gender identity (e.g., due to restrictions imposed by state or local law in their place of birth or residence), requiring students to produce such identification documents in order to treat them consistent with their gender identity may violate Title IX when doing so has the practical effect of limiting or denying students equal access to an educational program or activity. The letter also contained a portion about restroom and locker room use. That guidance stated that under Title IX, schools were prohibited from forcing students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity. That directive further stated transgender students could not be “segregated” from others in restrooms and locker rooms: Restrooms and Locker Rooms. A school may provide separate facilities on the basis of sex, but must allow transgender students access to such facilities consistent with their gender identity. A school may not require transgender students to use facilities inconsistent with their gender identity or to use individual-user facilities when other students are not required to do so. A school may, however, make individual-user options available to all students who voluntarily seek additional privacy. Critics contended that school policies about bathroom access should be decided by states and local school boards, not the feds, and that the guidelines effectively create new federal regulations that may violate the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Example Output:
President Obama ordered all schools to make all bathrooms transgender or face a loss of federal funding.