Congress is giving Defense Secretary Ashton Carter a bad case of heartburn.

Indeed, each year the Secretary of Defense sends the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees a so-called heartburn letter, which catalogues funding proposals that the Secretary would rather not see in the Pentagon’s annual policy bill.

Some background:

Official Washington is out of town for the next few weeks. But a small group of congressional staffers is trying to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of that policy bill— the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA.

To Carter’s way of thinking, there’s plenty to cause heartburn in some of the provisions that could be in the final version of the bill. He’s even thinking about recommending a veto to the President. These provisions are enumerated in his letter to the chairmen of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, as well as in the Statements of Administration Policy on the House and Senate bills.

And while we don’t agree with some items in Carter’s letter, there are several issues on which the Secretary asks Congress to take the fiscally responsible path. Not surprisingly, we agree. The heartburn letter decries what Carter refers to as Congress “carrying on business as usual, pursuing provisions that reject important budgetary decisions” made by Pentagon leaders.

Secretary Carter lists as his “first and most urgent concern” the gimmick within a gimmick in the House version of the bill. The Administration requested $523.9 billion for so-called “base” Pentagon funding (subject to budget caps) and $58.8 billion in war funding in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account (not subject to the caps) for Fiscal Year 2017. The House version of the bill shifts $18 billion in OCO money to the base budget – busting the caps – and requires the Pentagon to spend the vast majority of the remaining OCO account prior to the end of April 2017. This tactic is budgetary sleight of hand and we joined with several other fiscal conservative groups to ask that it be stricken.

Congress also refused the Pentagon’s request for another round of base closures that would, Carter says, “free up significant resources to fund high priority program requirements.” (In truth, we would rather those savings go to deficit reduction.) History has shown that only an independent commission can make the tough decisions about which bases to close. But the Congress continues to block funding for such a commission. And while lawmakers criticize the Defense Department for inefficiency and failing to make hard decisions, Carter says, “it is Congress that has continued to fail to remove the most readily evident excess in our enterprise: excess infrastructure and the support functions that go with it.”

We also agree with Carter in opposing congressional action to increase the number of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) purchased in FY17 from two to three. In short, congressional advocates want to keep federal funds flowing to the shipyards for a ship that can only operate in “permissive environments.” In contrast, the Secretary says the Pentagon wants to spend that money “to help improve the U.S. Navy’s ability to fight and win a war at sea against a high-end opponent.” And what sense does it make for the Navy to purchase any ships incapable of going up against a “high-end” adversary? Who do they think we might have to battle in the future? Only low-end military powers?

And speaking of the strength of the shipbuilding industry to push Congress into bad decisions, the House version of the NDAA once again disallows the use of any funds to implement the Navy’s plan to retire or “inactivate’’ two classes of ships. From the heartburn letter: “The Department can ill-afford these additional costs which would further limit the Department’s ability to make critical investments in other areas of lethality, modernization, and readiness.” We couldn’t agree more.

Lest you think the Secretary is only concerned with big ticket items, he also wades into the issue of athletic footwear. Both versions of the NDAA include protectionist provisions that limit the choice new military recruits have in selecting athletic shoes at boot camp. Carter has it exactly right when he writes, “…because only one manufacturer is currently producing a shoe that arguably meets the standards established by these provisions, they appear to provide a preferential, sole-source arrangement for a particular company.” Don’t know if the pun was intended, but sole-source arrangement indeed.

From the largest, overarching budget issue to the smallest, the Secretary’s “heartburn” letter has much to agree with. We’ll continue to take this fight to the members of the conference committee as they hammer out a compromise bill to send to the President.