Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Al Green

Democrat on National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2027 2026-07-15

262 words · 11 sentences · 14 clauses

Statement grade

B–

70 / 100, held down by Signal

A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.

Reasoning 8%The ask 22%Claims 10%Procedure 59%

This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.

Mr. Chair, Reasoning · 22 wordsI rise in opposition to including funding for Israel’s military in the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Program Appropriations Act. The ask · 21 wordsI respectfully request that funding for Israel’s military be considered through a standalone bill, allowing Members to vote separately on question. Claims · 27 wordsI first made this request in December 2025, when I opposed legislation linking funding for our military with funding for Israel’s military.¹ My position has not changed. The ask · 23 wordsToday, I again respectfully request that funding for the Department of State and related programs not be linked to funding for Israel’s military. Procedure · 18 wordsAccordingly, I include in the Record the text of my December 10, 2025, letter to Speaker Mike Johnson.²Procedure The ask · 14 wordsI now believe there should be a standalone vote on all funding to Israel: Procedure · 137 wordsThe Acting CHAIR (Mr. Goldman of Texas). All time for general debate has expired. Pursuant the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China united states foundation for natural security and counterterrorism nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development contribution to the international fund for agricultural development prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization prohibition on assistance to governments supporting international prohibition on assistance to the palestinian broadcasting corporation torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment parking fines and real property taxes owed by foreign governments limitation on the use of funds made available for certain onlineProcedure

At a glance

Lost points for
Little substanceMuch of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 40

7 of 7 deductions are Signal

Signal checks whether every part makes a point, gives a reason, or asks for action. A low score means the speaker filled time with fluff, pleasantries, or attacks.

Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Accordingly, I include in the Record the text of my December 10, 2025, letter to Speaker Mike Johnson.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “The Acting CHAIR (Mr.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Goldman of Texas).”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “All time for general debate has expired.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “Pursuant the rule, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the 5-minute rule.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “The bill shall be considered as read. international boundary and water commission, united states and mexico Congressional-Executive Commission on the People’s Republic of China united states foundation for natural security and counterterrorism nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining and related programs contribution to the european bank for reconstruction and development contribution to the international fund for agricultural development prohibition on funding for abortions and involuntary sterilization prohibition on assistance to governments supporting international prohibition on assistance to the palestinian broadcasting corporation torture and other cruel, inhuman,”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “or degrading treatment or punishment parking fines and real property taxes owed by foreign governments limitation on the use of funds made available for certain online”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 7 deductions are Relevance

Relevance checks whether the speaker stays on topic and answers the question asked. A low score means the speaker dodged the issue. Measured against the bill under debate.

Nothing lost points.

Respect · no score

Not checked: graded before this measurement existed. Excluded from the average.

Respect checks whether the speaker argued with people’s positions and records rather than attacking the people: insults, mockery, or bad motives assigned to them. Criticism of what someone did, however strong, is not marked.

Clarity · 100

0 of 7 deductions are Clarity

Clarity checks for plain speaking, clear ownership of actions, and honest limits on certainty. A low score means vague promises or evasive language.

Nothing lost points.

Claims · 2

This list shows the factual statements you can check for yourself: the words as said, and the claim restated to stand on its own.

1“I first made this request in December 2025, when I opposed legislation linking funding for our military with funding for Israel’s military”In December 2025, Al Green opposed legislation that linked US military funding with funding for Israel’s military and made his request for a standalone Israel funding vote then.search
2“the text of my December 10, 2025, letter to Speaker Mike Johnson”Al Green sent a letter dated December 10, 2025, to Speaker Mike Johnson regarding funding for Israel’s military.search

Analyzed on 2026-09-15