Daniel Schwartz of Epstein, Becker & Green, who writes  the excellent Connecticut Employment Law Blog, notes that the President plans to veto the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes additional Family and Medical Leave “[b]ecause of any qualifying exigency” arising from the employee’s spouse, child, or parent being on active duty or ordered to active duty in the armed forces. 

Michael Fox of Ogletree Deakins, whose Jottings by and Employer's Lawyer established him as the Dean of labor law bloggers, gives well-deserved credit to Mr. Schwartz for picking up on the FMLA ramifications of the veto.  Mr. Fox also notes:

It seems that the offending clause in a 1000+ page bill is § 1083 which provides in part:

Chapter 97 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 1605 the following:
`Sec. 1605A. Terrorism exception to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

`(a) In General-

`(1) NO IMMUNITY- A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case not otherwise covered by this chapter in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial killing, aircraft sabotage, hostage taking, or the provision of material support or resources for such an act if such act or provision of material support or resources is engaged in by an official, employee, or agent of such foreign state while acting within the scope of his or her office, employment, or agency.

That particular provision was of great concern to the Iraq government and the concerns have convinced the White House of the need to take action.