Did you spin this? The link you provide says something totally different. Here's teh reasons I found for a veto:
Two items in the House defense bill could lead to a veto, the policy statement warns. One is a change in the National Security Personnel System that would back away from the pay-for-performance initiative pushed by the Bush administration and reverse some of the flexibility provided in current law. The second issue that could prompt a veto are Buy America provisions in the bill that White House officials said "would impose unrealistically arduous requirements." I don't have details on the first but here's the second: The White House also threatened to veto over several "Buy American" provisions in the bill. The provisions, among other things, would preclude the Pentagon from purchasing certain goods from foreign companies or from companies that receive foreign subsidies, and make it tougher for the Defense secretary to issue waivers based on limited domestic sources. House members, in part, are seeking to enforce a provision in the fiscal 2007 defense authorization (PL 109-364), which required that a host of items "must be grown, reprocessed, reused, or produced wholly in the United States if they are purchased with funds made available to" the Pentagon. There were concerns that too many waivers were being issued, said Duncan Hunter of California, ranking Republican on the Armed Services panel. The bill "establishes a formal rule-making process for waivers that apply to multiple contracts to facilitate transparency and the gathering of broad industry input," Hunter said. On 5/17/07, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thu May 17, 4:26 PM ET > > In the veto threat against the National Defense Authorization Act, the > White House says they're opposed to two things: Increased survivor > benefits of $40 a month to spouses of those who lost someone in > military service, and a pay increase to all personnel, across the > board, just half a percent higher than what the President endorsed. > > Bush budget officials said the administration "strongly opposes" both > the 3.5 percent raise for 2008 and the follow-on increases, calling > extra pay increases "unnecessary." > > http://www.iava.org/blog/2007/05/17/white-house-opposes-35-percent-pay-raise > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/?sdid=RVJQ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:235096 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
