Analysis · Speech on a bill · beta

Monica De La Cruz

Republican on Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act 2026-09-14

413 words · 19 sentences · 28 clauses

Statement grade

A–

Average 86 / 100

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

Procedure 10%Positioning 15%Claims 38%Reasoning 24%Promise 6%The ask 5%Thanks 2%

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

Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 9 wordsI yield myself such time as I may consume.Procedure Mr. Speaker, Procedure · 25 wordstoday, I rise in support of H.R. 8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, ¹or the FUTURES Act.Procedure Positioning · 63 wordsThis bipartisan, commonsense measure addresses a real challenge. As technology evolves at unprecedented speed and banks and financial firms adopt new tools, do our financial regulators have the technology and expertise they need to keep pace? I am proud to support the FUTURES Act, led by Representatives Marlin Stutzman and Bill Foster, ²which takes important steps toward modernizing our Federal financial regulatory agencies.Positioning Claims · 55 wordsThe FUTURES Act provides Congress with a comprehensive view of the roadblocks hindering our supervisors’ ability to effectively regulate and supervise their financial institutions. It does so by providing Congress with a clear picture of the technology regulators currently use, where critical gaps exist, and what barriers stand in the way of closing those gaps. Reasoning · 72 wordsIf our regulators and supervisors cannot keep pace with a constantly evolving market, there is a legitimate risk to both financial market stability and the broader economy. We must equip agencies with the tools they need to effectively oversee the ever-changing landscape of global finance.Vague promise A crucial first step in doing so is to remove roadblocks, outdated agency practices, procurement barriers, and needless bureaucracy that slows the adoption of cutting-edge supervisory technology. Claims · 65 wordsThe FUTURES Act would identify and address these roadblocks and help enable more effective, realtime oversight of markets and institutions. This is a critical step to create a more transparent and efficient supervisory environment for financial institutions and market participants of all sizes. The bill also takes a look at whether agencies can recruit, train, and retain the technical experts needed to meet their missions. Reasoning · 26 wordsJust as we hold our financial institutions to rigorous standards on cybersecurity and vendor oversight, we should equip our regulators to meet the same high bars. Promise · 25 wordsI look forward to the insights this bill will generate and how they will guide future engagement to improve supervision across the Federal financial system.Vague promise Claims · 35 wordsI supported this bipartisan, commonsense bill last Congress and during our committee markup in May, ³and I am pleased to do so today. All of my colleagues at the Financial Services Committee supported this bill, ⁴The ask · 20 wordsand I urge the rest of my colleagues in the House to join us in passing this important bipartisan bill. Mr. Speaker, Thanks · 10 wordsI thank Mr. Stutzman and Mr. Foster for their leadership, ThanksProcedure · 8 wordsand I reserve the balance of my time.Procedure

At a glance

Lost points for

Switch Claims on to list the checkable claims here.

What the tags mean

Signal · 70

10 of 12 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 “I yield myself such time as I may consume.”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 “today, I rise in support of H.R.”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 “8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act,”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 the FUTURES Act.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “This bipartisan, commonsense measure addresses a real challenge.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “As technology evolves at unprecedented speed and banks and financial firms adopt new tools, do our financial regulators have the technology and expertise they need to keep pace?”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “I am proud to support the FUTURES Act, led by Representatives Marlin Stutzman and Bill Foster,”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Praise, blame or attack with no claim, reason or ask in it.What the tags mean “which takes important steps toward modernizing our Federal financial regulatory agencies.”Positioning: praise, blame or attack. No claim, reason or ask.
Thanks and tributes.What the tags mean “I thank Mr. Stutzman and Mr. Foster for their leadership,”Thanks: no claim, reason or ask.
Throat-clearing: announcing what you are about to say, or the House’s routine business.What the tags mean “and I reserve the balance of my time.”Procedure or throat-clearing: no claim, reason or ask.

Relevance · 100

0 of 12 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 · 87

2 of 12 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.

A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “We must equip agencies with the tools they need”States a commitment with no actor, measure, date, or way to tell when it is done.
A promise with no date, no measure and no one responsible.What the tags mean “I look forward to the insights this bill will generate”Expresses support for unspecified future outcomes with no actor, measure, or success condition.

Claims · 4

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“8278, the Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act, ”The Fostering the Use of Technology to Uphold Regulatory Effectiveness in Supervision Act is H.R. 8278.search
2“led by Representatives Marlin Stutzman and Bill Foster”The FUTURES Act (H.R. 8278) is led by Representatives Marlin Stutzman and Bill Foster.search
3“I supported this bipartisan, commonsense bill last Congress and during our committee markup in May”Monica De La Cruz supported the FUTURES Act in the previous Congress and during a House Financial Services Committee markup in May 2026.search
4“All of my colleagues at the Financial Services Committee supported this bill”Every member of the House Financial Services Committee supported the FUTURES Act.search

Analyzed on 2026-09-16