Leading Senate proponents of US military adventurism are threatening to withhold their support for this year’s GOP budget plan, unless sequestration spending caps are removed from defense spending, or a package includes an arcane provision that could pave the way for future Pentagon budget increases.

In the absence of Pentagon-specific Budget Control Act repeals, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) want to see “deficit-neutral reserve funds” that could free up budgetary restrictions on US military spending.

Although these “reserve funds” won’t eliminate fiscal restrictions on the Defense Department, they do give lawmakers flexibility down the road to increase spending above sequester levels if other revenue-increasing legislation—like a proposal to close tax loopholes—is passed

President Obama’s proposed budget for 2016 sets both domestic and defense spending levels above sequester caps. He’s objected to proposals by Republicans that eliminate the sequester on defense spending, but keep it in place on domestic spending.

The White House wants Congress to remove all the arbitrary restrictions that have been imposed, at different levels, by lawmakers over the past few debt ceiling disputes. The first such “crisis” started in 2011, after Republicans, buoyed by the Tea Party and wealthy donors behind the movement, took control of the House.

Citing the President’s commitment to increasing defense spending, Sen. Graham broke from his colleagues who want to keep the caps in place and taxes no higher than they are, currently.

“I will not be a Republican who votes for a final budget deal that spends less than Barack Obama. That would be hitting bottom for me. We’re not going to hit bottom with my vote,” he told an audience at an event hosted this week by the Foreign Policy Initiative.

“And to those in my party who worship the tax code more than the Department of Defense, we’re going to have a struggle with each other,” Graham added, voicing support for closing certain tax loopholes in order to raise funds for Pentagon spending. That move is currently forbidden by sequester restrictions, which the Republican chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) said he intends to keep in place.

Should Graham’s reserve funds provision be included in a final budget deal, however, then it would permit increased spending above sequester as long as it was offset on the other side of the balance sheet.

“Either we will do it by an amendment or in the base bill,” Graham said, noting that he’s “confident” that Enzi “will not be a problem.”

The obscure reserve fund provisions have gained popularity in recent years. In the 1980’s, they were rarely, if ever, used, but in 2009, lawmakers passed dozens of them to raise awareness about fiscal pet peeves.

Adopting these reserve fund provisions now could alleviate some of the strife between defense hawks and deficit hawks by keeping the sequester in place while raising the possibility of increasing defense spending in the future—if lawmakers can strike a deal to find the added revenue.

But not everyone is convinced. The Hill reported that Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called the idea a “gimmick.”

“We’ll have to increase defense spending in the budget itself,” the Armed Services Committee chair said, pledging to withdraw his support for the budget unless spending levels are adjusted.