Congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) faced difficulty when asked to clarify her proposed amendment to a spending bill by Congressman Steny Hoyer (D-Md.). Boebert’s amendment aims to prevent the use of funds from the financial services and general government appropriations bill to provide financial assistance to sanctuary cities.
During the House floor debate, Hoyer expressed confusion and asked Boebert to explain which funds in the bill she opposes. Boebert paused and sought clarification from an aide before responding that her proposal is precautionary. Hoyer then asked, “Precautionary for what?”
In response, Boebert launched into an argument about sanctuary city policies and their alleged association with an increase in crime and drugs. However, it is important to note that there is no universally agreed definition for sanctuary cities, and previous research suggests that these policies do not lead to a rise in crime.
Hoyer acknowledged Boebert’s concerns but reiterated that there are no funds in the bill allocated for the objective she opposes. Boebert failed to directly answer Hoyer’s question and instead claimed that she has seen the administration use various funds to protect illegal aliens.
Hoyer clarified that there are no funds in the bill for that purpose and accused Boebert of using the opportunity to gain attention and discuss an important subject without any relevant funds being involved.
Boebert is known for her attention-seeking behavior in Congress, online, and elsewhere. The exchange between Boebert and Hoyer can be viewed in the video provided.
Overall, the discussion highlighted Boebert’s struggle to explain the justification for her proposed amendment and the lack of funds in the bill for her intended objective.
