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.

Input: Consider 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, preventionand 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.

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."

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Tuesday is the final day of Sexually Transmitted Disease Awareness Month, and the state CDC says it's recommending prevention, screening and treatment. The agency says Maine has seen "dramatic increases" in gonorrhea and syphilis in the last five years. Gonorrhea cases increased nearly 200 percent, to 686, from 2014 to 2018. Syphilis cases have risen by almost 600 percent, to 104, in that same timeframe. Acting Maine CDC Director Nancy Beardsley says the health consequences of sexually transmitted infections are serious enough that residents "know the facts about STDs and get tested if they believe they are at risk." Claim: Maine stresses test as sexually transmitted infections surge.

Output: The Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention is calling on residents to get tested for sexually transmitted infections amid a spike in cases of gonorrhea and syphilis in the state.

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The company's shares nearly quadrupled to a life high of $305 on Thursday morning on the Nasdaq, valuing the company at about $6 billion. Intercept said it had stopped the trial after the drug showed statistically significant improvement in patients, compared with a placebo, in a review by an independent safety committee. The trial tested the drug, obeticholic acid, in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), a form of liver inflammation. Analysts said the news came as a surprise to investors, who had previously focused on the drug as a treatment for primary biliary cirrhosis, an autoimmune disease in which bile ducts in the liver are destroyed. The drug is being tested for the condition in a late-stage study. "We didn't expect this data until the fourth quarter," Wedbush analyst Liana Moussatos said. "It's a huge opportunity for the company as there are over 10 million patients worldwide." Moussatos said Intercept could tie up with Big Pharma companies to conduct a late-stage trial of the drug. Intercept could also conduct a late-stage trial with its partner Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma, which is testing the drug in Japan, she said. Obeticholic acid, Intercept's lead drug, is also being tested in mid-stage studies to treat bile acid diarrhea and portal hypertension, which is high blood pressure in veins that transport blood from the gastrointestinal tract and spleen to the liver. The drug's structure is similar to that of a naturally occurring human bile acid. Intercept said the safety committee made the recommendation after reviewing liver biopsy data from about half of the 283 patients enrolled in the mid-stage trial. There is currently no specific treatment for NASH, according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health. To manage the disease, patients are recommended to maintain a healthy weight, follow a balanced diet, increase physical activity and avoid alcohol. Claim: Intercept liver drug meets main goal in study, shares quadruple.
Output: Intercept Pharmaceuticals Inc's drug to treat liver disease caused by fat buildup was found effective in a trial, paving the way for it to become the first approved treatment for the chronic condition.