And I asked the gentle lady to yield for a question. >> Someone's recognized it's not my time. >> Speaker 1: I asked you to yield. >> Speaker 2: I have reserved, you're free to speak. >> Speaker 1: [LAUGH] Yes, I'm asking if you'll yield for a question. >> Speaker 2: Sure, ask your question. >> Speaker 1: What funds in this bill are used for the purposes you- [00:00:18] >> Okay. >> Are opposed to? >> Speaker 3: Sorry, I couldn't hear the gentleman. >> Speaker 3: It's crazy that you could actually, [00:00:33] hear crickets chirping in the time that Lauren Boebert was not answering that extremely straightforward question. I've got more from this back and forth for you, more back than forth, considering [LAUGH] how little Lauren Boebert had to say, but I wanna give you some context. [00:00:51] Boebert was attempting to add an amendment to a spending bill that would prohibit any funds from being used to violate federal immigration law regarding, so called, sanctuary cities. So, Representative Stenny Hoyer asked her what the hell she's talking [00:01:07] about because the spending bill has nothing to do with immigration. And she couldn't handle being called out, so she starts just spewing nonsense, take a look. >> Speaker 2: This is precautionary. >> Speaker 1: Precautionary for what? [00:01:22] I'm asking- >> Speaker 2: There are sanctuary city policies. >> Speaker 1: Yes, I understand, I understand what you're- >> That are in place, that are allowing the refuge of illegal aliens in these cities. And there is an influx in crime and drugs. >> I understand. >> In these cities, and there's no way for these folks to even report what is taking [00:01:41] 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. >> Speaker 1: I understand that, but what you've said is none of the funds in this bill can be spent for that objective. [00:01:59] >> Speaker 2: And that is precautionary, I want you- >> Speaker 1: What funds are in this bill to be spent for that objective? >> I have seen this administration use all sorts of funds- >> No, I didn't ask you. >> To protect illegal aliens. >> Speaker 1: Reclaiming my time, Ms. Boebert >> And this is precautionary to ensure that it will not be. >> Reclaiming my time. [00:02:15] There are no funds in this bill to do that. >> Speaker 3: It is not a spending bill concerning immigration at all. But what she's saying is, well, we need to add this precautionary measure just [00:02:32] in case somehow this money might end up going towards sanctuary cities. Specifically for the purposes of protecting undocumented immigrants, it is completely absurd, Steny Hoyer is 100% right to be calling her out about it. [00:02:48] He also goes on to make the point that if they allow her to add this amendment that serves no purpose, just so that she can grandstand and make her point. Give her talking points about immigration and undocumented immigrants, [00:03:04] then what's to stop them from adding any random precautionary. Preventative amendment to any spending bill whatsoever? And he drives the point home here about why introducing this is just [00:03:19] a distraction and completely pointless. >> Speaker 1: There are no funds in this bill, Mr. Speaker, for the objective that the lady wants to prevent. And I guarantee you, Chairman Womack would not have included any funds to protect such activity. [00:03:37] I know him, I know he's feeling strong, he feels strongly about this. So, this amendment has no place in this bill because there is no money in this bill. You can argue about sanctuary cities, you can argue about the border, [00:03:54] you can do all of that, but this is not the bill to do it on. And this raises, therefore, a suspicion that somehow there's money in this bill that Mr. Womack would have put in or that I would have sanctioned to accomplish that objective, that is simply not true. [00:04:14] >> Speaker 3: And Jackson, he makes a good point about, if we allow this to happen, if we just allow any conservative to grandstand. And throw whatever amendment relative to the topic their talking point of the week is, that the circus that is Congress is just gonna completely descend into utter chaos. [00:04:34] >> Yeah, and it's just, what's the end goal other than chaos, other than all? It's just something to do, it may be something that people talk about to keep people running their mouths. But when you really take a step back and look at Lauren Boebert, she's a few years older than me. [00:04:50] I'm 31, I think she's what, 36, 37, 38, she's not 40. And I say all that to say, she just seems to be like, this isn't really going the way I thought it would, I'm having to deal with a whole lot of public scrutiny. I mean, really, at the end of the day, she's just a person. So, she had to go through all of that public embarrassment simply, well, [00:05:09] she caused it herself by acting out of the public theater. But still, just in general, that guy being a Democrat and having drag shows at his bar became an issue when really she just liked him, you know what I'm saying? [00:05:24] Her grifting and playing this role is impacting her personal life, and she just doesn't seem to be enjoying it. Because clearly she doesn't know what's going on, she doesn't know what she's talking about. And more importantly than that, she's not interested in any of this. [00:05:40] So, I'd be curious to see what she ends up doing, I mean, I don't know who really would willingly give up a seat. Well, a lot of people would but, yeah, I think she's just in over ahead. >> Speaker 3: Yeah, and she did almost lose her election, I mean, [00:05:56] it was razor thin margins in her district in the last election, we'll see how things go for her in 2024. [MUSIC]