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.

Ex Input:
Knox County’s proposed ordinance hasn’t been drafted yet, but County Attorney Yvette Kirchoff said the ordinance wouldn’t be retroactive so homeowners won’t have to remove existing plants. If the measure is approved, Knox County would be the first in Indiana to move forward with such an ordinance, Kirchoff told the Vincennes Sun-Commercial . Invasive species can take over and alter environments, said Will Drews, a natural resource specialist with the Knox County Soil and Water Conservation District. They can also disrupt pasture lands and agriculture. “We’ve introduced most of them, unfortunately, over time,” he said. “They’re mostly from other parts of the world, such as Europe or Asia, and the problem is that they have no natural predators, so they just kind of get out of control.” One major issue is that some invasive species — such as wintercreeper, Japanese honeysuckle and burning bush — can be found in local nurseries and are used by landscapers, Drews said. “These are plants that are literally destroying our forests,” Drews said. “That’s frustrating to a lot of the folks that I work with and those who are aware of the problem.” The state Department of Natural Resources and state lawmakers have been working on legislation that would attempt to regulate the spread of invasive species, but the process has been slow, Drews said. Drews and Kirchoff are drafting the ordinance and will present it to the county commissioners soon. ___ Information from: Vincennes Sun-Commercial, http://www.vincennes.com

Ex Output:
Indiana county working on invasive plants ordinance.


Ex Input:
His two attempts to craft legislation replacing Obama’s law have collapsed for lack of GOP support. Republican opposition seems likely to doom a vote next week on his Plan C, a bill simply repealing much of Obama’s statute. Along the way, conservative Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., accused McConnell of a “serious breach of trust” by telling moderates that proposed Medicaid cuts would not occur. His fellow Kentucky Republican, Sen. Rand Paul, was a constant thorn and the most vociferous opponent of McConnell’s effort. And Utah Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, gave party leaders little advance word when he and Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, deserted the bill late Monday, effectively killing it in the dark of night. “This has been a very, very challenging experience for all of us,” McConnell told reporters Tuesday. McConnell faced a difficult environment. Polls have consistently shown Obama’s statute was far more popular than the GOP effort to repeal it, making his bill a tough sell to colleagues. President Donald Trump’s dismal approval ratings and zigzagging engagement haven’t helped. And facing unbroken Democratic opposition, McConnell needed to win over at least 50 of the 52 GOP senators, a .962 batting average he’s been unable to achieve. “Mitch has a tough, tough job and frankly I cut him a lot of slack on this. He can only do so much,” said Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. Democrats, who often grudgingly marvel at McConnell’s moves, kept waiting for him to pull a rabbit from what turned out to be an empty hat. They said he overreached by turning a bill reshaping Obama’s law into one that also cut nearly $1 trillion in taxes over a decade and sliced almost $800 billion from Medicaid, the health care program for the poor, disabled and nursing home patients. They say he boxed himself in by rushing to deliver on his party’s seven-year-old overpromise to repeal Obama’s law. That proved an arduous task that angered tens of millions who’ve benefited from the statute, especially with much of McConnell’s work performed behind closed office doors. “I don’t have any sympathy for him,” said Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., his party’s No. 2 Senate leader. “I assume he felt duty-bound as the Republican leader” to pursue repeal of Obama’s law. But he said McConnell should have known that “rewriting the health care system of America on the fly and in secret was not going to work.” McConnell seemed to be trying to turn lemons into lemonade with next week’s likely rejection of a simple repeal of much of Obama’s law. By losing, GOP leaders would send a message to conservative voters that they tried to obliterate the law, while signaling to Republican senators that the votes aren’t there and it is time to move on. A senator for 33 years, the 75-year-old McConnell has a reputation for weaving compromises that avert onrushing political disasters. He cut several such deals during Obama’s years in the White House, including major budget pacts in 2011 and 2013. But once Donald Trump won the presidency and Republicans took House and Senate control this year, it became McConnell’s job to play offense. In particular, he is quarterback of the Senate GOP drive to repeal Obama’s law. But dismantling the law is not going to happen, at least in the immediate future. Assessing Democrats as unwilling to help them scrap Obama’s law — which they were — McConnell ignored them from the start. That tactic ignored his own advice from his 2016 memoir, “The Long Game,” in which he criticized Democrats for passing Obama’s 2010 statute “without regard for the views of the other side.” “Once you only have 52 votes and you try to do a bill just with Republicans, you set yourself up for a nearly impossible task,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. McConnell’s latest bill would cut Medicaid, letting insurers sell policies with negligible coverage and rolling back Obama taxes on the health care industry. Getting GOP votes for it is a Rubik’s cube-like problem because conservatives and moderates have mutually exclusive demands, like whether to slash Medicaid or erase Obama regulations protecting consumers. “You have first- and second-term twerps that think they know the solution to everything,” said former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., who retired in 2007. “This was always going to be a difficult process and I’m not sure how we would have handled it differently,” said No. 2 Senate GOP leader John Cornyn of Texas. Movement conservatives who have often accused McConnell of not being an aggressive enough champion of their causes do fault him. “Mitchcare collapses,” read a statement by Ken Cuccinelli, who heads the Senate Conservatives Fund, which has clashed with McConnell. Cuccinelli called the bill’s demise “an embarrassing defeat for someone who portrays himself as a strategic genius.”

Ex Output:
Crumbling health bill dents McConnell image as top tactician.


Ex Input:
"The Oregon House recently passed a bill that would remove concealed handgun applications from the public record. Proponents of the bill say that there’s too much personal information on individual citizens tied up in the documents. Public records should focus on the government, not private citizens, they say. Here’s Rep. Kim Thatcher’s full-throated defense of the move from the House debate on the day they passed the bill:  ""As the law stands now, the information in these applications includes things like, home phone numbers, home address, Social Security numbers, what kinds of guns you have in the house -- that's what's on the application -- whether you were dishonorably discharged from the military, what controlled substances you are taking and were you ever accused of -- accused, mind you -- of stalking,"" Thatcher, R-Keizer, said. ""And right now all of that would be subject to public records disclosure."" That’s an awful lot of information, indeed. But being our usual suspicious selves, we wondered whether all of that was truly included in the application. So, we did a quick check -- well, we thought it would be a quick check. We’d just pull down the Multnomah County Sheriff’s online license application and take a look, right? Well, it turns out that each of Oregon’s 36 counties has a slightly different application -- some considerably more stringent, some considerably less. After a few days of web searching and phone calling, we got our hands on 34 of the applications. Here’s what we found:  -""Home phone numbers"": Yes. This is one of the first things every application we reviewed asks for. -""Home address"": Yes, again. You also have to include a mailing address if that’s different. -""Social Security numbers"": Sort of. Every application we reviewed asks for a Social Security number, but all, save two, expressly note that ""disclosure of your Social Security account number is voluntary."" -""What kinds of guns you have in the house"": Not usually. On 24 of the applications we looked through, there was no question asking applicants about current ownership. Of the remaining eight, six asked whether you ""currently own or possess a firearm,"" but only if you have ever been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, renounced your U.S. citizenship, been ordered to register as a sex offender in any state or use controlled substances. Everybody else can skip the question. The remaining four from Baker, Grant, Gilliam and Klamath counties ask all applicants for this information. -""Whether you were dishonorably discharged from the military"": Yes, this is on most applications. If you have been, you also have to say when it happened. -""What controlled substances you are taking"": Yep, this is there. Such controlled substances, for those who are curious, include but are not ""limited to, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, LSD, or ecstasy."" (That quote is from the Multnomah County application.) -""Were you ever accused of ... stalking"": Nope. Eleven applications don’t touch on this subject at all. The other 23 ask only if the applicant is ""currently subject to any type of restraining or stalking order by the court."" They also have to include some specifics about that situation if that question applies to them. That said, if the order has been lifted, the question doesn’t apply -- note the word ""currently."" For what it’s worth, those last two questions (the one on controlled substances and the one about stalking) are pretty important given that federal law, according to the application, prohibits folks who say yes to those questions from possessing firearms at all, much less handguns of the concealed variety. Thatcher is spot on when it comes to four of her assertions (the phone numbers, home addresses, military discharge and controlled substances), but she’s less accurate on the other three  (social security, current gun ownership and stalking). When we called her office, Rep. Thatcher -- and later her spokeswoman Dawn Phillips -- told us she wasn’t making sweeping proclamations about all of the applications. What matters, they said, is that her comments apply to some of the state’s 36 applications. On that point, she’s pretty close to right. That is, except for the stalking claim. Thatcher makes it sound as though anybody accused of stalking at any point in their lives would have to say so on the application. But that’s just no true. On certain applications, you have to noted whether you are currently under a court order. That’s considerably different, in our view. Still, we’ll give her the benefit of the doubt that some of the necessary nuance was left out because her comments were spoken -- not written."

Ex Output:

"Oregon concealed gun applications include ""home phone numbers, home address, Social Security numbers, what kinds of guns you have in the house … whether you were dishonorably discharged from the military, what controlled substances you are taking and  were you ever accused of -- accused, mind you -- of stalking."