{"id":11669,"date":"2026-05-21T18:45:23","date_gmt":"2026-05-21T18:45:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/key-army-efforts-pinned-to-lawmakers-taste-for-a-new-reconciliation-bill\/"},"modified":"2026-05-21T18:45:24","modified_gmt":"2026-05-21T18:45:24","slug":"key-army-efforts-pinned-to-lawmakers-taste-for-a-new-reconciliation-bill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawahsolutions.com\/range\/key-army-efforts-pinned-to-lawmakers-taste-for-a-new-reconciliation-bill\/","title":{"rendered":"Key Army efforts pinned to lawmakers\u2019 taste for a new reconciliation bill"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

The White House decision to seek about one-quarter of its gargantuan $1.5 trillion defense-spending request as reconciliation funding leaves some of the military\u2019s top priorities\u2014munitions, industrial-base upgrades\u2014up to lawmakers\u2019 appetite for another precedent-breaking budget maneuver.<\/p>\n

The Army, for example, is asking for $24.5 billion to fund purchases through DOD\u2019s Munitions Acceleration Council, according to budget documents. The service is also asking for $206 million to expand and upgrade its own weapons factories\u2014ten times the amount requested in last year\u2019s reconciliation bill.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe have all of these incredible things that we’re trying to do and move forward, but acceleration is only as good as our counterparts on the Hill are able to push it forward as well, right?\u201d Maj. Gen. Rebecca McElwain, the Army\u2019s budget director, said Thursday during an Association of the United States Army event. \u201cSo, if we get our funding halfway through a fiscal year, that could complicate things.\u201d<\/p>\n

Last year\u2019s reconciliation bill is a case in point. After months of back and forth, the bill finally passed in July, with just weeks left in the fiscal year. Then it took the Pentagon another seven months to produce its plan to spend the money, including $2.6 billion for Army procurement.<\/p>\n

And there is no guarantee that Congress\u2014which broke precedents to pass last year\u2019s reconciliation bill\u2014will approve the administration\u2019s request for a new one worth twice as much to the Pentagon.<\/p>\n

\u201cWhen we’re looking at reconciliation, you can see very clearly what will not be accelerated, and a lot of that is in our munitions and our industrial base,\u201d McElwain said. \u201cI would say that would slow it down, especially some of the multi-year programs that we have that are vested in there with the munitions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Army doesn\u2019t decide which parts of its funding request will go into which bill, and the administration hasn\u2019t been open about its strategy to fund so much of the government through reconciliation.<\/p>\n

The difference in funding types means that an appropriations bill has line-by-line mandates for how each dollar is spent, while a reconciliation bill is a big check that the department can ultimately divvy up as it sees fit, though Congress makes recommendations and agencies report back their spending plans.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cMr. Secretary, the administration is taking an enormous risk by asking for $350 billion in priorities through reconciliation,\u201d Rep. Betty McCollum, D-Minn., the ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, told Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth earlier this month.\u00a0 \u201cAs we told you in our last meeting, reconciliation is not the best way to fund the department. Last year, reconciliation created broken glass\u2014funding holds for vital programs that the appropriators had to fix. And that’s why we need the information in a timely fashion.\u201d<\/p>\n

Her concern is a bipartisan one. Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who chairs the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee, railed against the reconciliation bill last year and recently lamented the administration\u2019s request for a new one.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe distinction between base and reconciliation really matters,\u201d McConnell said during a hearing earlier this month. \u201cBase funding is what creates budget stability for the services and sends consistent demand signals to industry, and base funding is what gets extended by short-term continuing resolutions when work on full-year appropriations is unfinished.\u201d<\/p>\n

McConnell cautioned against a Republican administration relying on a Republican majority to get its budget requests funded, especially for money that goes toward longer-term investments.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs I said last year, reconciliation should be a supplement to, not a substitute for,\u201d he said. \u201cPolitical realities will not always allow for party line, budget reconciliation, and if the department’s top priorities aren’t built into annual appropriations. We’re actually taking a big risk.\u201d<\/p>\n

There are also concerns about the timing of how separate pots of money are distributed, Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., SAC-D\u2019s ranking member, said at the same hearing.<\/p>\n

\u201cLast year, $150 billion was provided to the department, but the mismatch between base year and one-year, between long-term and short-term, caused tens of billions of dollars in errors,\u201d he said. \u201cErrors in how shipbuilding was handled, errors in how new munitions are being acquired. And working together on a bipartisan basis, we fixed many of those problems.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Coons warned that this year\u2019s near-tripling of that amount could result in even more of those errors.\n\n<\/svg><\/p>\n<\/div>\n