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.

Example Input: Paragraph: Novacyt said the FDA’s approval meant that hospitals and laboratories in the United States would be able to use the test for clinical diagnosis of the coronavirus, and that the test was now available for immediate distribution in the U.S. market. “The U.S. FDA EUA authorization is another important endorsement of the performance and quality of our COVID-19 test and demonstrates once again Novacyt’s growing role in tackling this pandemic,” said Novacyt CEO Graham Mullis. Claim: Healthcare group Novacyt wins U.S. approval for coronavirus test.
Example Output: Novacyt, a healthcare company specializing in clinical diagnostics, announced on Monday approval from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) regulator for its product aimed at testing for coronavirus.

Example Input: 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, prevention and 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.
Example Output: "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."

Example Input: Paragraph: "The handling of a police traffic stop involving Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed’s brother raises questions about power, politics and ethics. What has the Truth-O-Meter spinning is a more practical concern: crime databases. When police stopped Tracy Reed on Oct. 28, he had an open warrant for failing to appear at a traffic court hearing three weeks earlier. Reed could have been arrested on the spot. Yet when an officer ran his name in the Atlanta Police Department’s criminal database, the warrant never popped up. A police major let Reed go. This was no fluke, according to a recent city of Atlanta news release about its internal investigation on the stop. Police may rely upon the Atlanta Criminal Information Center database to find out whether someone has a warrant, but in certain cases, it can’t tell them. ""Atlanta Municipal Court bench warrants are not included in the Atlanta Criminal Information Center [ACIC] database,"" the Nov. 28 release said. Bench warrants are arrest warrants initiated by a judge, often when people fail to appear in court. We PolitiFact Georgia scribes squinted our eyes and read the sentence twice. If these arrest warrants aren’t in the system, how do police know whom to haul to jail? We talked to Atlanta police, reviewed existing policies and statutes, contacted court officials, and looked at investigative reports to find some answers. And yes, there is a hole in the city’s criminal database. In case you missed the controversy, Reed ran into trouble Oct. 28 after an Atlanta police officer stopped him for driving with an expired tag, according to a city internal investigation. Even though Reed drove with a license suspended since 2006, the patrolman’s superior let the mayor’s brother go. Running a criminal history database is a complex operation. The information is sensitive and the stakes are high. If the people who enter the data get it wrong or don’t enter it in time, an officer might come face to face with a dangerous felon and not even know it. A person could be jailed for a crime he didn’t commit. That means police can’t do something as simple as make a phone call or send an email to put a warrant in the system, state and local law enforcement officials told us. Only specially certified employees may enter the information into the computer, and they may do so only after receiving the proper documentation. When Atlanta police obtain warrants as part of their investigations, agency policy gives investigating officers 12 hours to hand-deliver the paperwork to the APD team that updates the criminal database. But when an Atlanta municipal judge issues a warrant because someone fails to appear in court, no one hands this paperwork over for entry in the city’s database, police spokesman Carlos Campos told PolitiFact. In fact, these bench warrants are not entered into any local, state or national database, according to the city’s investigative report. Georgia law doesn’t require it, said Shirley Andrews, who helps run the state’s criminal database for the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The state attorney general designates what minor offenses must be in the system. Bench warrants for failing to appear in Municipal Court are not on it. This is a problem, Atlanta Police Chief George Turner told investigators. ""[T]he truth is, there are thousands of folks that are warranted by Municipal Court warrants. But there’s no way, not to my knowledge, on how to deal with it,"" Turner said, according to a transcript of his interview. The head of a state professional organization for prosecutors said he has heard that other jurisdictions are wrestling with the issue. Officers or dispatchers could telephone the Atlanta court to check for open warrants, Turner told investigators, but it’s closed on Friday, the day Reed was stopped. Police and court officials told PolitiFact they’ve been working on this problem for months but need funding to solve it. Atlanta Municipal Court bench warrants are not included in the ACIC database, as the city’s news release said. In fact, Atlanta’s police chief estimates that thousands of people with open warrants aren’t in there. We find the city’s claim ." Claim: A database police use to look up wanted suspects excludes certain warrants issued by Atlanta Municipal Court.
Example Output:
City: Criminal database lacks some Atlanta warrants