Lauren Boebert schooled by elder Democratic congressman while trying to grandstand about immigration

Anti-LGBTQ+ Christian nationalist Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) got schooled by a high-ranking Democrat this week when she couldn’t answer a simple question about an anti-immigration amendment she tried to shove into a government funding bill.

On Wednesday, Boebert tried to insert an amendment into the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for 2024, a bill that largely funds various government agencies, roles, and other administrative functions. Her amendment sought to ensure that no taxpayer funds in the bill would support sanctuary cities that protect undocumented immigrants from prosecution or deportation.

Related:

Lauren Boebert’s district trolls her with Beetlejuice displays & candy touting her “spooky” values

This is one trick that she won’t consider a treat.

The only problem: Although the bill did mention the District of Columbia, and its Mayor Muriel Bowser did say in 2016 that it was a sanctuary city, the spending bill didn’t mention anything about sanctuary cities, nor did its specific funding requirements allow for any funds to be used for such a purpose.

Insights for the LGBTQ+ community

Subscribe to our briefing for insights into how politics impacts the LGBTQ+ community and more.

Daily

Weekly

Good News

The funding bill mostly addresses the salaries and operating expenses for various federal government roles, offices, and programs, including repairs to the White House and vice presidential residence, money for various programs — like those for HIV/AIDS, drug control, and indigenous communities — and also gives money to run the District of Columbia’s judiciary, schools, and public utilities.

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) heard Boebert introducing her amendment and, taking an opposing chamber lectern, said, “I rise in perplexion.” He then requested permission to ask her a question. She agreed.

“What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you are opposed to?” he asked.

After a small pause, she replied, “This is precautionary.”

He asked, “Precautionary for what?”

She answered, “There are 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 and there is no way for these folks to even report what is taking place because they are protected under this fake policy that has been created that is subduing the actual rule of law that we have in the Constitution of the United States.”

He replied, “I understand that, but what you’ve said is 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?”

She said, “I have seen this administration use all sorts of funds to protect illegal aliens.”

Reclaiming his time, Hoyer then pointed out, “There are no funds in this bill to do that. 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. You don’t believe that the chairman would put funds in to accomplish that objective, do you?”

The chairman Hoyer was referring to was Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), chair of the House Appropriations Committee. That is, Hoyer was asking Boebert if she thought her Republican colleague would actually sneak funds into this bill to help sanctuary cities protect undocumented immigrants.

Boebert replied that she didn’t trust the Biden administration to honestly handle taxpayer money, and that if Hoyer believed that the bill contained no funding for sanctuary cities then he should support her amendment.

However, Hoyer explained the House Rules Committee Chairman, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), had approved rules for the discussion at hand prohibiting House members from entering amendments unrelated to a bill.

“If we do this amendment,” Hoyer said, “any subject that anybody has an interest in would be subject to such an amendment.”

“There are no funds in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for the objective that the gentlelady wants to prevent,” he continued. “This amendment has no place in this bill because there is no money in this bill [for this purpose]. You can argue about the sanctuary cities and argue about the border and do all of that, but this is not the bill to do it on.”