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
Example solution: 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.
Example explanation: 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.

Problem: Paragraph: Members of the New York delegation, joined by first responders, survivors and family members, lamented an announcement by the Justice Department that the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund is running low on money and future payments may be cut by up to 70 percent. Comedian Jon Stewart, a longtime advocate for 9/11 responders, called the Feb. 15 announcement by the fund's special master "unconscionable" and said Congress has a moral obligation to step in. At a news conference at the Capitol, Stewart said it was "nonsense" that first responders and their families again have to "beg" Congress for money nearly 18 years after the attacks. "This is nonsense. This is theater. You know it and I know it," Stewart said. "If the American people in their busy lives had any sense that these shenanigans were going on, they would be outraged." He and other speakers urged Congress to act quickly to restore the fund and ensure it has enough money to pay benefits for the next 70 years or as long as victims need it. Anything less than full and permanent funding is "shameful," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., adding the death toll from the 2001 attacks "is still growing." "It should not be a fight to pass this bill again," Gillibrand said. The collapse of the World Trade Center in September 2001 sent a cloud of thick dust billowing over Lower Manhattan. Fires burned for weeks. Thousands of construction workers, police officers, firefighters and others spent time working in the soot, often without proper respiratory protection. In the years since, many have seen their health decline, some with respiratory or digestive-system ailments that appeared almost immediately, others with illnesses that developed as they aged, including cancer. Nearly 40,000 people have applied to the federal fund for people with illnesses potentially related to being at the World Trade Center site, the Pentagon or Shanksville, Pennsylvania, after the attacks. About 19,000 claims are pending. Nearly $5 billion in benefits have been awarded out of the $7.3 billion fund. Rupa Bhattacharyya, special master of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund, said she was "painfully aware of the inequity" of the potential cuts, but said awarding some funds for every valid claim would be preferable to sending some legitimate claimants away empty-handed. Fund officials estimate it would take another $5 billion to pay pending claims and claims that officials anticipate will be submitted before the fund's December 2020 deadline. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said the cost of restoring the program is minimal compared to the cruelty of failing to do so. "A great nation cannot nickel-and-dime people that have sacrificed their health on our behalf," he said. Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., said the 9/11 attacks "were not just a New York event" or an East Coast event, but were an attack on all Americans. "This is a sea-to-shining-sea moment, a sea-to-shining sea promise, a sea-to-shining-sea obligation," Gardner said. The victims' fund should "not be extended for a moment but for a lifetime," he added. Stewart, reverting to comic form, said the victims' fund was "like a Starbucks card. We're just asking to get a little more money." Claim: Lawmakers, first responders sound alarm on 9/11 fund.
Solution: More than 17 years after the 9/11 attacks, first responders and their advocates were back at the Capitol Monday urging Congress to ensure that a victims' compensation fund does not run out of money.