McConnell Remarks at SAC-D FY27 Defense Budget Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, delivered the following opening statement at today's hearing, "A Review of the President's Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request for the Department of Defense":

Secretary Hegseth, General Caine - welcome. I'm looking forward to discussing the President's budget request and I'm encouraged by this opportunity to work together for the common defense.

Today, the need for significant defense investments is as urgent and obvious as it is overdue. Quantity has a quality all its own. And the sheer scale of our defense commitments sends a powerful signal.

But what goes on under that topline matters. The way this budget request is structured matters. This is not a $1.5 trillion dollar defense appropriations request. It's a request for $1.1 trillion in base appropriations and another $350 billion in reconciliation.

The good news? The base request reflects real growth, unlike the net cut in the FY26 request… and unlike the Biden-level CR for FY25.

But some of the most pressing items on the FY27 to-do list are downstream of missed opportunities in FY26… Like the failure to fully fund $28 billion in multiyear contracts for critical munitions. This subcommittee did what we could to increase munitions purchases above the FY26 requested levels. But we couldn't do it all without sufficient topline.

This year, the FY27 request sets a higher topline…High enough, one would think, to build the Department's highest priorities into the base budget request, instead of shunting them off into a one-time reconciliation request.

Which brings me to the bad news: The FY27 request fails to make room in the base budget for some of the military's top priorities.

This distinction between base and reconciliation matters. Base 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.

As I said last year, reconciliation should be a supplement to, not a substitute for, sustained annual funding.

Political 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 taking a big risk.

The Department is right to make Golden Dome, munitions, the F-35 program, and drone dominance top priorities.

But these key lines of effort only work if we put them on solid fiscal footing.

So why is the Department requesting funding for multi-year munitions contracts - which, by definition, require steady year-on-year funding - via one-time reconciliation?

And why risk some of the President's top priorities like Golden Dome by not firmly building them into the Department's base budget?

National missile defense will require sustained funding over many years, not a one-off expenditure.

Other key platforms, like a second destroyer and the E-7 battle management aircraft aren't requested in base or reconciliation.

Mr. Secretary, you've been outspoken about the place of America's armed forces as the "most powerful, most lethal, and most prepared military on the planet".

I'm as committed as you are to sustaining that role… But that's precisely why I'm confused by the Administration's failure to prioritize key systems in year-on-year base-budget spending.

Mr. Secretary, I hope you'll also explain the Department's current approach to allies and partners. The stunning success of Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury illustrates the importance of the access, basing, and overflight granted by allies in Europe and the Gulf.

I'm as frustrated as anyone about Spain, but they are the exception to the rule when it comes to European allies carrying more of the burden.

Likewise, it's impossible to conceive of U.S. power projection in INDOPACOM without the reach that comes from decades-old alliance relationships.

So I'll want to hear the Department's view on the role of longtime allies in support of U.S. interests across the globe… Because it's quite clear now that our expectation for European allies is no longer the "focus on your own continent" message they received from your subordinates for most of last year.

Our adversaries are working together to undermine America and the West.

Strained relations with our partners - who are making generational commitments to collective defense and driving investment into American-made weapons and systems - serves our adversaries' interests and limits our capacity and deterrent power globally.

So I'll want to hear about the future of capacity-building with committed allies and partners, from the Baltic States to Taiwan and the Philippines. And I expect that European capacity-building investments intended specifically for Ukraine reach their destination without further delay.

Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East clearly show that we have things to learn from our friends. If we want Drone Dominance, it makes perfect sense to deepen cooperation with the world's foremost drone warfare experts.

This isn't charity. When our partners are capable, deterrence is stronger and the risk to US servicemembers is lower. This is as true in the Middle East today as it is in Europe and in the Indo-Pacific.

Our allies and partners share many of our global interests, and if fail to take advantage of this alignment, we're only hurting ourselves.

I'll end with one final observation on the prospect of supplemental appropriations: The deficiencies of our critical munitions stocks and industrial capacity existed long before conflict with Iran and Russia's escalation in Ukraine.

If the Administration sends Congress a supplemental appropriations request, it'll be an important step toward fixing a longstanding problem and investing in future deterrence. It shouldn't be a referendum on war in Iran.

I supported a national security supplemental in 2024 even though I thought President Biden's approach to Russia and Iran was too weak.

I did it not only because supporting Ukraine is in our strategic interests, but because these funds helped replenish American stockpiles and restore our own defense industrial base.

Today, the need to expand munitions production and replace battlefield losses is even more urgent.

And if we get the chance to consider an emergency supplemental, I would urge each of our colleagues - even those who object to the president's use of force against Iran - to leave politics at the door and help restore readiness.

Permalink: https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/5/mcconnell-remarks-at-sac-d-fy27-defense-budget-hearing