Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
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: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.

New input case for you: Paragraph: The Department of Homeland Security said it would issue the sixth waiver of Donald Trump's presidency under a 2005 law that empowers the secretary to waive reviews required under environmental laws if the border barrier is deemed to be in national security interests. Those laws include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act and Endangered Species Act. The waiver, which was announced Thursday and published Friday in the Federal Register, helps clear the way for work to begin this month on replacing a second layer of barrier in San Diego, a steel-mesh wall that worked like a fortress when it was built about a decade ago but is now often breached with powerful battery-operated saws sold in home improvement stores. The waivers avoid time-consuming reviews and lawsuits challenging violation of environmental laws. The government awarded a $101 million contract to SLSCO Ltd. of Galveston, Texas, to build a barrier of 30-feet-high steel bollards, with options for an additional $30 million. Work is scheduled to begin this month. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a public notice that the Border Patrol's San Diego sector is "an area of high illegal entry," with more than 38,000 arrests and seizures of more than 4 tons (3,600 kilograms) of marijuana and 1,800 pounds (816 kilograms) of cocaine in the 2018 fiscal year. San Diego was the third busiest corridor for illegal crossings among the Border Patrol's nine sectors along the Mexican border in 2018 after Texas' Rio Grande Valley and Tucson, Arizona. Work on replacing the first layer of San Diego barrier is nearly complete, also 14 miles (22.5 kilometers) long and made of steel bollards up to 30 feet (9 meters) high. Environmental groups criticized the latest waiver. "Trump is ignoring laws that protect public health and endangered wildlife so he can fulfill a hateful campaign promise," said Laiken Jordahl, borderlands campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity. "Communities and ecosystems along the border are being upended by this militarization, but Border Patrol won't even give residents the decency of a public hearing. This is the definition of lawlessness." President George W. Bush's administration issued five waivers, paving the way for barriers to blanket about one-third of the border with Mexico. Barack Obama's administration didn't issue any waivers. Claim: US to waive environmental reviews for San Diego border wall.
Output:
The Trump administration on Friday waived environmental reviews to replace a 14-mile (22.5 kilometer) stretch of border barrier in San Diego, shielding itself from potentially crippling delays.