Senate Republicans Shut Down House Talk About Third Party-Line Bill

Top Senate Republicans believe the chances of a third reconciliation bill are bleak despite the plans of House leaders, who are already crafting one, even before the party’s slim border package finally limped across the finish line on Tuesday.

House Republicans for weeks have stoked chatter about passing a third single-party measure this summer. However, those discussions hit a dose of reality on Tuesday as a pair of leading Senate Republicans publicly declared they believe a third bill ain’t happening — a decision that has scores of political and national security ramifications.

“I think it’s safe to conclude there will not be another reconciliation bill,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, chair of the Appropriations defense subcommittee, said during a hearing Tuesday, pointing to the Pentagon’s call to pass $350 billion of President Donald Trump’s $1.5 trillion defense budget using the process to get around a Democratic filibuster..

“So it’s not an option,” the Kentucky Republican said.

Adding insult to injury for the proponents of a third bill, Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) concurred.

Republican leaders have long floated a third bill as a potential item in the toolkit in order to pass priorities that didn’t make it into earlier packages, especially ahead of the November midterms, when Democrats could seize control of one or both chambers.

Talk about a third proposal kicked off in earnest last week when House Speaker Mike Johnson said that he expected to start moving on it “in the coming weeks,” with the priority issues being “fraud, waste and abuse in government.”

Republican lawmakers believe there are a number of other issues that could garner inclusion if plans move ahead, including funds for the Iran war and other tax-related items.

However, after a push to approve a narrow second bill to provide funds for border protection turned into a hellish and complicated process, members have been left with a sour taste in their mouths. This is giving them little hope that another package has enough support — especially those who have been most vocal in pushing leaders to move one.

“I want to do a third reconciliation package,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-Louisiana) recently told reporters. “When people boldly declare we’re going to do a third reconciliation package, I generally tell them, ‘I hope you’re right.’ But in the meantime, back off the crank. It’s not looking real good.”

“We’ve had a lot of trouble with number two,” Kennedy continued. “I see the world as it is, not as I want it to be.”

Allies of leadership agree.

“I think we should do it. … I also think it’s going to be a heavy lift,” said Sen. Steve Daines (R-Montana), a top backer of Senate Majority Leader John Thune.

Republican lawmakers had hoped for a pain-free process to pass the border and ICE package, with Thune reiterating early on a plan to keep the bill targeted just to immigration enforcement funding. That went sideways after the White House demanded money to secure Trump’s planned ballroom and the $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund was announced, blowing up Thune’s plans.

The final bill Congress finally approved was almost identical to the initial measure Republican leaders laid out at the start of the process, but it came after weeks of divisions inside the conference about how to handle the president’s requests.

Republican senators are already citing the potential hurdles for a third bill. Daines noted there’s no clear consensus about what the bill would tackle, which only compounds the difficulty for leadership.

“There would be a pretty long list of items, and that creates probably one of the challenges of getting it done,” Daines continued, citing an old adage from former Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee).

“The more rocks in the backpack, the harder to get to the top of the mountain,” he added.

The timing would also generate more headaches since Congress is just five months out from the midterm elections and Republicans are reeling as the public increasingly disagrees with Trump’s handling of the Iran war and the economy.

That was on display in the upper chamber last week as Sens. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), John Husted (R-Ohio) and Collins — all of whom face difficult reelection bids in November — , voted for a number of Democratic amendments going after the “anti-weaponization” fund and the ballroom security dollars.

Even Thune cast doubt on the chances of a third bill, telling reporters on Monday that last week’s tumult made it “evident … that’s going to be hard” to get 50 votes for one.

The possible collapse of a third bill would also have a major impact on the U.S. military and the defense industry.

Hawkish Senate Republicans have publicly griped for weeks about the White House’s defense funding request. That frustration boiled over in an Air Force budget hearing when McConnell — one of the administration’s chief critics on the issue — made his grim assessment.

McConnell has been arguing that the $350 billion chunk includes core defense priorities that deserve to be in a regular budget, which sets priorities for multiple years, and not reconciliation, which is a single-year funding package. He called the administration’s strategy “a recipe for major disruptions in the very possible event that party-line reconciliation fails.”

Among them is $17 billion for the Golden Dome missile defense system, a marquee program spearheaded by Trump himself. There’s also billions for multiyear munitions purchases, part of a giant effort from Pentagon leaders that promises to restock the military’s dwindling arsenal to boost defense jobs and balance sheets.

“This is especially mystifying for multiyear procurement contracts. I mean, the need to budget for them annually is right there in the name,” McConnell said. “The administration’s choice to structure an ambitious $1.5 trillion dollar request in this way is yet another missed opportunity to put key aspects of our common defense on a stronger and more enduring fiscal footing.”

Collins, at Tuesday’s hearing, ripped the Trump administration’s bifurcation of F-35 fighter jet purchases along similar lines. She noted that Pratt & Whitney’s facility in Maine had invested in a new engine factory that employs 2,300 people, but the regular budget request included only $10 million for engine upgrades and put the remaining $144 million for the project into reconciliation.

“Here’s my concern: The administration is proposing that a significant portion of funding for both of these modernization programs be done through a third reconciliation bill, a bill that may never happen,” she said. “What is the impact on these programs if they are not fully funded in fiscal 2027, and what are the impacts on the defense industrial base?”

Over in the House however, Johnson keeps talking up the idea of a third bill.

At an elected leadership meeting on Monday, House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris (R-Maryland) pitched using reconciliation to pass the hyper-partisan portions of appropriations bills, a source told NOTUS.

Harris — who is an appropriator — proposed the third party-line bill as the way to get funding priorities through without having to go through the appropriations process. Johnson appeared open to the idea, one source said, but it was unclear if he actually grasped the magnitude of what was being floated.

Other Republicans believe Johnson is serious about trying to pass a third reconciliation bill, but say it is a fool’s errand.

“Where’s the jelly in the middle of the donut? What’s the enticement for me? Every one of the ideas that’s put forward is something that is punitive to the states that all the front liners are in,” one House Republican told NOTUS of a third reconciliation bill.”