On Wednesday, the House of Representatives, led by the thin Republican majority, went back to wasting America’s time debating make-’em-up amendments for HR 4664, an appropriations bill. Rep. Lauren Boebert, fresh off trying to strip funds from the Environmental Protection Agency, was on the House floor defending her newest amendment: “Prohibits the use of funds made available by this Act to be used to provide financial assistance to Sanctuary Cities.”
The problem here is that regardless of one's feelings about immigration, border security, or sanctuary cities, there is nothing in the bill earmarked for any of that. Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland noted this strange bit of business and asked Boebert if she would “yield for a question”? Boebert did, and boy, having to argue her point during a debate is not the strong suit of the Republican from Colorado.
Hoyer needed only to ask the question “What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you are opposed to?” and subsequently remind Boebert that her political anxiety over tax money and sanctuary cities is not represented in the bill she is adding this piece of theater to. “None of the funds in this bill can be spent for that objective.”
YouTube Video
Campaign Action
The problem here is that regardless of one's feelings about immigration, border security, or sanctuary cities, there is nothing in the bill earmarked for any of that. Democratic Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland noted this strange bit of business and asked Boebert if she would “yield for a question”? Boebert did, and boy, having to argue her point during a debate is not the strong suit of the Republican from Colorado.
Hoyer needed only to ask the question “What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you are opposed to?” and subsequently remind Boebert that her political anxiety over tax money and sanctuary cities is not represented in the bill she is adding this piece of theater to. “None of the funds in this bill can be spent for that objective.”
YouTube Video
Campaign Action