Her proposed amendment to the financial services and general government appropriations bill would prohibit “the use of funds made available by this act to be used to provide financial assistance to sanctuary cities.”
“I rise in perplexion,” Hoyer said during House floor debate, asking the far-right firebrand to explain “what funds in this bill are used for the purposes that you are opposed to?”
Boebert paused and conferred with an aide, before responding: “Sorry, I couldn’t hear, gentleman. I was getting clarification. This is precautionary.”
“Precautionary for what?” Hoyer asked.
Boebert launched into a spiel about “sanctuary city policies that are in place that are allowing the refuge of illegal aliens in this, and there is an influx of crime and drugs in these cities.” (Sanctuary cities are a frequent target of GOP politicians, although there’s not a set definition for the term. Past research indicates that sanctuary policies have not led to an increase in crime.)
“I understand that,” Hoyer replied, “but what you’ve said — none of the funds in this bill can be spent for that objective.”
“What funds are in this bill that are to be spent for this objective?” he asked.
Boebert didn’t answer directly, saying, “I have seen this administration use all sorts of funds to protect illegal aliens.”
“Reclaiming my time. There are no funds in this bill to do that,” Hoyer shot back. “So this is just an opportunity for you to stand and perhaps speak about an important subject, I understand that. But there are no funds in this bill to accomplish that objective.”
Boebert is known for her bizarre, attention-seeking theatrics in Congress, online and elsewhere.
No comments:
Post a Comment