Can Congress approve Biden’s $100 billion request without an elected House speaker?

The House of Representatives is still without a Speaker of the House, after the historic ousting of Rep. Kevin McCarthy in early October.

As Israel continues to carry out its bombing campaign against Gaza and begins to amass troops along the border, President Biden has called on Congress to pass a spending package with additional. But without a Speaker of the House, legislation cannot be passed. On Friday, Rep. Jim Jordan dropped out of the race for Speaker, a move made by Rep. Steve Scalise last week.

What is a ‘Speaker-light’?

Some are considering enhancing the powers of the Speaker Pro Tempore, currently held by Rep. Patrick McHenry. This idea is referred to on Capitol Hill as a ‘Speaker-light.’ There is a growing bipartisan consensus in granting Rep. McHenry additional powers to ensure the House of Representatives can continue to carry out their legislative responsibilities. A statement released by the more moderate Blue Dog caucus said that Rep. McHenry should be granted the powers of the Speaker “in order to eliminate the threat of a government shutdown next month, continue working on the FY2024 appropriations bills, and ensure the people of Israel and Ukraine have what they need to defend themselves against Hamas and Russia.” However, the call from the caucus would not grant these powers permanently and instead proposes a period of fifteen days.

So far, no such bill has been brought to the House floor for a vote, and while more moderate Democrats support the measure, more conservative members of the Republican caucus like Matt Gaetz say they oppose a “speaker-light.”

If progressive members in the House also oppose the expansion of Rep. McHenry’s powers, the proposal could be a non-starter. This would put the GOP back in the same position of trying to rally the caucus around a member who can receive a majority of the 218 votes needed to take the gavel.

What does the package include?

The funding package from the White House includes $100 billion to support the military activities of Israel and Ukraine, developing countries impacted by the war between Russia and Ukraine, and funding to enhance the security of the US-Mexico border.

As far as the military spending allocated in the bill, the White House has made clear that the funding is used to replenish stockpiles of weapons in the US, meaning that once weapons are sent to Ukraine or Israel, the funds are given to manufacturers in the US to rebuild the stockpile again.

In addition to funds for Israeli and Ukrainian militaries, the White House fact sheet says that through collaboration with international monetary agencies, the United States will support the deployment of “$200 billion of new financing for developing countries backed by our partners and allies.” The White House argued that these funds are necessary to compete with China, which acts as a lender to many developing countries to support them in building their infrastructure.

The final component of the bill contains funding to increase security at the US-Mexico border, including an expansion of border agents. These measures receive high levels of bipartisan support, but whether that will be enough to overcome the hurdle of having no Speaker of the House remains to be seen.

Notably missing from the package is aid for Palestine and the civilians under siege in Gaza. Previously, the White House had allocated $100 million in humanitarian assistance, a drop in the bucket compared to the military support sent to Israel as they prepare for a possible ground invasion of Gaza that could have catastrophic consequences. A recent poll from CBS News and YouGov found that while support for Israel among voters remained strong, more than half of independents and Democrats surveyed said that the US should not send more military aid to Israel. The same poll found that seventy percent of Democrats and nearly sixty percent of independents supported sending more humanitarian aid to Gaza.

These findings show a growing divide between policy and Washington and the sentiments of the average voter watching the conflict play out on their televisions and social media.