The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 04, 2013

Remarks by the President on the Nominations to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Rose Garden

10:28 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning, everybody.  Please have a seat.   

So one of the most important responsibilities of a President is to nominate qualified men and women to serve as judges on the federal bench. 

And Congress has a responsibility, as well.  The Senate is tasked with providing advice and consent.  They can approve a President’s nominee or they can reject a President’s nominee.  But they have a constitutional duty to promptly consider judicial nominees for confirmation.
Now, throughout my first term as President, the Senate too often failed to do that.  Time and again, congressional Republicans cynically used Senate rules and procedures to delay and even block qualified nominees from coming to a full vote. 

As a result, my judicial nominees have waited three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  Let me repeat that:  My nominees have taken three times longer to receive confirmation votes than those of my Republican predecessor.  These individuals that I nominate are qualified.  When they were given an up or down vote in the Senate -- when they were finally given an up or down vote in the Senate, every one of them was confirmed.  So this is not about principled opposition.  This is about political obstruction. 

I recognize that neither party has a perfect track record here.  Democrats weren’t completely blameless when I was in the Senate.  But what’s happening now is unprecedented.  For the good of the American people, it has to stop.  Too much of the people’s business is at stake.  Our legal framework depends on timely confirmations of judicial nominees.  And nowhere is this more apparent than with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

The D.C. Circuit is known as the second highest court in the country, and there’s a good reason for that.  The judges on the D.C. Circuit routinely have the final say on a broad range of cases involving everything from national security to environmental policy; from questions of campaign finance to workers’ rights.  In other words, the court’s decisions impact almost every aspect of our lives. 

There are 11 seats on the D.C. Circuit Court.  When I first took office, there were two vacancies.  Since then, two more judges have retired.  That means there are four vacancies that needed to be filled.  And by February of this year, more than one-third of the seats on the nation’s second highest court were empty.  I mean, imagine if a third of the seats on the highest court -- the Supreme Court -- were empty.  We would rightly consider that a judicial crisis.  If we want to ensure a fair and functioning judiciary, our courts cannot be short-staffed.

In 2010, I put forward a highly qualified nominee for the D.C. Circuit -- Caitlin Halligan.  Caitlin’s credentials were beyond question.  She had bipartisan support from the legal and law enforcement communities.  She had the support of a majority of senators.  Nobody suggested she was not qualified to serve on the court.  If Caitlin had gotten a simple up or down vote before the full Senate, I am confident she would have been easily confirmed.  But instead, for two and a half years, Senate Republicans blocked her nominations.  It had nothing to do with Caitlin’s qualifications.  It was all about politics.  And after two and a half years of languishing in limbo, this brilliant and principled lawyer asked me to withdraw her nomination.

Now, the good news is last year I put forward another highly qualified nominee -- Sri Srinivasan.  And Sri’s credentials were also beyond question.  And no doubt due to some mounting public pressure, along with the vocal bipartisan support that he received, Sri was unanimously confirmed a few weeks ago, becoming the first South Asian American to serve as a circuit court judge in our nation’s history. 

So I’m pleased that the Senate acted.  I’m glad Republicans chose not to play politics and obstruct Sri’s nomination the way they did with Caitlin’s.  And I’m hopeful that we can now build on that progress, because Sri’s confirmation was the first to the D.C. Circuit in seven years.  So out of the four vacancies that existed, one has now been filled.  There are three seats still vacant on the D.C. Circuit Court -- one of them, by the way -- one of them has been vacant since Chief Justice Roberts was elevated to the Supreme Court in 2005.  Anybody who values the role of our courts should find that unacceptable regardless of your party.  Which brings me to today.  That's why today I’m nominating three outstanding, highly qualified individuals to fill those remaining seats. 

Now Patricia Millett is one of our nation’s finest appellate attorneys and, until recently, held the record for the most Supreme Court arguments by a female lawyer.  She served in the Solicitor General’s Office for 11 years, for both Democratic and Republican Presidents.  Since then, in private practice, she’s represented everyone from large businesses to individual pro bono plaintiffs.  And, by the way, as the wife of a retired Navy officer, Patricia has served our nation outside the courtroom as well, as a member of a military family.

Nina Pillard’s career has been defined by an unshakeable commitment to the public good.  She twice served in the Department of Justice and was an attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.  Her landmark successes before the Supreme Court include defending the constitutionality of the Family and Medical Leave Act and opening the doors of the Virginia Military Institute to female students.  And, today, Nina is a professor at Georgetown and, if confirmed, would continue the D.C. Circuit’s strong tradition of distinguished scholars going on to serve as judges -- from Antonin Scalia to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

And finally, this is the second time I’ve called on Judge Robert Wilkins to serve -- because in 2010, I nominated Robert to the D.C. District Court, and the Senate confirmed him without opposition.  Before serving with distinction as a federal judge, Robert spent eight years in private practice and a decade as a public defender here in Washington, D.C., providing legal representation to defendants who could not afford an attorney.  And throughout his career, Robert has distinguished himself as a principled attorney of the utmost integrity. 

So these three individuals are highly qualified to serve on the D.C. Circuit.  They have broad bipartisan support from across the legal community.  The non-partisan American Bar Association have given them -- each of them -- its highest rating.  These are no slouches.  (Laughter.)  These are no hacks.  There are incredibly accomplished lawyers by all accounts.  And there are members of Congress here today who are ready to move forward with these nominations, including the Chairman, Patrick Leahy.  So there’s no reason -- aside from politics -- for Republicans to block these individuals from getting an up or down vote. 

Despite that, some Republicans recently have suggested that by nominating these three individuals, I’m somehow engaging in -- and I’m quoting here -- in “court-packing.”  (Laughter.)  No -- people laugh, but this is an argument I’ve made.  For those of you who are familiar with the history of court-packing, that involved Franklin Delano Roosevelt trying to add additional seats to the Supreme Court in order to water down and get more support for his political agenda.  We’re not adding seats here.  We’re trying to fill seats that are already existing.  Each of the past five Presidents has seen at least three of their nominees confirmed to the D.C. Circuit.  Since I’ve been President, obstruction has slowed that down to one. 

Right now, there are three open seats on a critical court.  I didn’t create these seats.  I didn’t just wake up one day and say, let’s add three seats to the District Court of Appeals.  These are open seats.  And the Constitution demands that I nominate qualified individuals to fill those seats.  What I am doing today is my job.  I need the Senate to do its job.

The fact that Republican senators are now pushing a proposal to reduce the number of judges on this independent federal court also makes no sense.  When a Republican was President, 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit Court made complete sense.  Now that a Democrat is President, it apparently doesn’t.  Eight is suddenly enough.  (Laughter.)  People are laughing because it's obviously a blatant political move. 

We know that because some of the same Republicans behind this current proposal to reduce the number of seats on the D.C. Circuit Court voted in 2007 to keep 11 judges on the D.C. Circuit -- same folks.  They say the workload has decreased since then, but in April, the judicial conference of the United States -- which, by the way, is led by Chief Justice John Roberts and includes judges from various levels of the federal court system -- told the Senate that the current workload before the D.C. Circuit requires 11 judges.  So they should know.  That was just two months ago.

Chief Justice John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the highest court in the land, and former member of the D.C. Circuit Court says they need 11 judges.  So it's important we don’t play games here, and it's important that we cut through the verbiage. 

An essential part of our democracy is the separation of powers.  The executive, the legislative, and the judiciary each have a role to play.  And when it comes to judicial nominees, my responsibility is to put forward qualified individuals.  These are three of the most qualified individuals you'll ever meet.  The Senate's responsibility, in turn, is to promptly give them an up or down vote. 

So today, I'm doing my part.  I hope in the coming months that the Senate does its part, because I assure you, when these three outstanding individuals are on the bench, they will do their part.  That’s what the Constitution demands.  It's what the American people expect.  And I look forward to years of outstanding service by these outstanding lawyers of incredible integrity. 

And I promised that I would mention this before all of you -- they also have really good-looking families.  (Laughter.)  Because I just saw their kids, and -- (applause).  All right.  Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.)

END
10:43 A.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 04, 2013

FACT SHEET: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues

LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES & EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

Today the White House announced major steps to improve incentives for future innovation in high tech patents, a key driver of economic growth and good paying American jobs.  The White House issued five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations designed to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system.  Additionally, the National Economic Council and the Council of Economic Advisers released a report, Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, detailing the challenges posed and necessity for bold legislative action.

In 2011, the President signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), a landmark piece of legislation designed to help make our patent system more efficient and reliable.  As technology evolves more rapidly than ever, we must ensure our patent system keeps pace.  As President Obama said in February, “our efforts at patent reform only went about halfway to where we need to go.  What we need to do is pull together additional stakeholders and see if we can build some additional consensus on smarter patent laws.”

The AIA put in place new mechanisms for post-grant review of patents and other reforms to boost patent quality.  Meanwhile, court decisions clarifying the scope of patentability and guidelines implementing these decisions diminish the opportunity to game the patent and litigation systems.  Nevertheless, innovators continue to face challenges from Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), companies that, in the President’s words “don’t actually produce anything themselves,” and instead develop a business model “to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.”  These entities are commonly known as “patent trolls.”  Likewise, the so-called “Smartphone Patent Wars” have ballooned in recent years and today, several major companies spend more on patent litigation and defensive acquisition than on research and development.

Stopping this drain on the American economy will require swift legislative action, and we are encouraged by the attention the issue is receiving in recent weeks.  We stand ready to work with Congress on these issues crucial to our economy, American jobs, and innovation.  While no single law or policy can address all these issues, much can and should be done to increase clarity and level the playing field for innovators. 

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

In that spirit, the Administration recommends that Congress pursue at least seven legislative measures that would have immediate effect on some major problems innovators face.  These measures would:

  1. Require patentees and applicants to disclose the “Real Party-in-Interest,” by requiring that any party sending demand letters, filing an infringement suit or seeking PTO review of a patent to file updated ownership information, and enabling the PTO or district courts to impose sanctions for non-compliance.

  2. Permit more discretion in awarding fees to prevailing parties in patent cases, providing district courts with more discretion to award attorney’s fees under 35 USC 285 as a sanction for abusive court filings (similar to the legal standard that applies in copyright infringement cases).

  3. Expand the PTO’s transitional program for covered business method patents to include a broader category of computer-enabled patents and permit a wider range of challengers to petition for review of issued patents before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).

  4. Protect off-the-shelf use by consumers and businesses by providing them with better legal protection against liability for a product being used off-the-shelf and solely for its intended use.  Also, stay judicial proceedings against such consumers when an infringement suit has also been brought against a vendor, retailer, or manufacturer.

  5. Change the ITC standard for obtaining an injunction to better align it with the traditional four-factor test in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, to enhance consistency in the standards applied at the ITC and district courts.

  6. Use demand letter transparency to help curb abusive suits, incentivizing public filing of demand letters in a way that makes them accessible and searchable to the public.

  7. Ensure the ITC has adequate flexibility in hiring qualified Administrative Law Judges.

EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

Today the Administration is also announcing a number of steps it is taking to help bring about greater transparency to the patent system and level the playing field for innovators.  Those steps include:

  1. Making “Real Party-in-Interest” the New Default.  Patent trolls often set up shell companies to hide their activities and enable their abusive litigation and extraction of settlements.  This tactic prevents those facing litigation from knowing the full extent of the patents that their adversaries hold when negotiating settlements, or even knowing connections between multiple trolls. The PTO will begin a rulemaking process to require patent applicants and owners to regularly update ownership information when they are involved in proceedings before the PTO, specifically designating the “ultimate parent entity” in control of the patent or application.

  2. Tightening Functional Claiming.  The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software.  The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field.

  3. Empowering Downstream Users.  Patent trolls are increasingly targeting Main Street retailers, consumers and other end-users of products containing patented technology — for instance, for using point-of-sale software or a particular business method.  End-users should not be subject to lawsuits for simply using a product as intended, and need an easier way to know their rights before entering into costly litigation or settlement.  The PTO will publish new education and outreach materials, including an accessible, plain-English web site offering answers to common questions by those facing demands from a possible troll.

  4. Expanding Dedicated Outreach and Study.  Challenges to U.S. innovation using tools available in the patent space are particularly dynamic, and require both dedicated attention and meaningful data.  Engagement with stakeholders — including patent holders, research institutions, consumer advocates, public interest groups, and the general public — is also an important part of our work moving forward.  Roundtables and workshops that the PTO, DOJ, and FTC have held in 2012 have offered invaluable input to this process. We are announcing an expansion of our outreach efforts, including six months of high-profile events across the country to develop new ideas and consensus around updates to patent policies and laws.  We are also announcing an expansion of the PTO Edison Scholars Program, which will bring distinguished academic experts to the PTO to develop — and make available to the public — more robust data and research on the issues bearing on abusive litigation.

  5. Strengthen Enforcement Process of Exclusion Orders. Once the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds a violation of Section 337 and issues an exclusion order barring the importation of infringing goods, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the ITC are responsible for determining whether imported articles fall within the scope of the exclusion order. Implementing these orders present unique challenges given these shared responsibilities and the complexity of making this determination, particularly in cases in which a technologically sophisticated product such as a smartphone has been successfully redesigned to not fall within the scope of the exclusion order. To address this concern, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator will launch an interagency review of existing procedures that CBP and the ITC use to evaluate the scope of exclusion orders and work to ensure the process and standards utilized during exclusion order enforcement activities are transparent, effective, and efficient.

President Obama Speaks at the National Conference on Mental Health

June 03, 2013 | 14:15 | Public Domain

President Obama delivers remarks to open the National Conference on Mental Health at the White House, part of the Administration’s effort to launch a national conversation to increase understanding and awareness about mental health.

Download mp4 (524MB) | mp3 (35MB)

Read the Transcript

Remarks by the President at National Conference on Mental Health

East Room

10:00 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much.  Welcome to the White House.  And thank you, Janelle, for that introduction and sharing your story, and making such a difference through your organization.  We’re really proud to have you here.

I want to thank Secretary Sebelius, Secretary Arne Duncan, Secretary Ric Shinseki for their leadership and helping to organize this event.  And I also want to acknowledge some outstanding members of Congress who are here and who care deeply about this issue. 

And finally, I want to thank all of you for participating in this national conference on mental health.  We wanted to bring together folks who’ve suffered from mental illness and families who’ve supported them.  We wanted to bring together advocates and educators, faith leaders, veterans, local officials. 

All of you have shown an extraordinary commitment to what is a critical goal, and that is to make sure that people aren’t suffering in silence and that we have the capacity to pull together all the resources and support and love that’s out there to go after an extraordinary challenge in our society.

The main goal of this conference is not to start a conversation -- so many of you have spent decades waging long and lonely battles to be heard.  Instead, it’s about elevating that conversation to a national level and bringing mental illness out of the shadows. 

We want to let people living with mental health challenges know that they are not alone, and we’ve got to be making sure that we’re committed to support those fellow Americans, because struggling with a mental illness or caring for someone who does can be isolating.  And I think everybody here who’s experienced the issue in one way or another understands that.  It begins to feel as if not only are you alone, but that you shouldn’t burden others with the challenge and the darkness, day in, day out -- what some call a cloud that you just can't seem to escape -- begins to close in.

The truth is, in any given year, one in five adults experience a mental illness -- one in five.  Forty-five million Americans suffer from things like depression or anxiety, schizophrenia or PTSD.  Young people are affected at a similar rate.  So we all know somebody -- a family member, a friend, a neighbor -- who has struggled or will struggle with mental health issues at some point in their lives.  Michelle and I have both known people who have battled severe depression over the years, people we love.  And oftentimes, those who seek treatment go on to lead happy, healthy, productive lives.

So we know that recovery is possible, we know help is available, and yet, as a society, we often think about mental health differently than other forms of health.  You see commercials on TV about a whole array of physical health issues, some of them very personal.  (Laughter.)  And yet, we whisper about mental health issues and avoid asking too many questions. 

The brain is a body part too; we just know less about it.  And there should be no shame in discussing or seeking help for treatable illnesses that affect too many people that we love.  We've got to get rid of that embarrassment; we've got to get rid of that stigma.  Too many Americans who struggle with mental health illnesses are still suffering in silence rather than seeking help, and we need to see it that men and women who would never hesitate to go see a doctor if they had a broken arm or came down with the flu, that they have that same attitude when it comes to their mental health. 

We see it in veterans who come home from the battlefield with the invisible wounds of war, but who feel somehow that seeking treatment is a sign of weakness when in fact it's a sign of strength.  We see it in parents who would do anything for their kids, but who often fight their mental health battle alone -– afraid that reaching out would somehow reflect badly on them. 

We see it in the tragedies that we have the power to prevent.  And I want to be absolutely clear:  The overwhelming majority of people who suffer from mental illnesses are not violent.  They will never pose a threat to themselves or others.  And there are a whole lot of violent people with no diagnosable mental health issues.  But we also know that most suicides each year involve someone with a mental health or substance abuse disorder.  And in some cases, when a condition goes untreated, it can lead to tragedy on a larger scale. 

We can do something about stories like these.  In many cases, treatment is available and effective.  We can help people who suffer from a mental illness continue to be great colleagues, great friends, the people we love.  We can take out some pain and give them a new sense of hope.  But it requires all of us to act.  And there are a few ways we can do our part.

First, we’ve got to do a better job recognizing mental health issues in our children, and making it easier for Americans of all ages to seek help.  Today, less than 40 percent of people with mental illness receive treatment -- less than 40 percent.  Even though three-quarters of mental illnesses emerge by the end of -- by the age of 24, only about half of children with mental health problems receive treatment.  Now think about it:  We wouldn’t accept it if only 40 percent of Americans with cancers got treatment.  We wouldn’t accept it if only half of young people with diabetes got help.  Why should we accept it when it comes to mental health?  It doesn't make any sense.

The good news is, there are plenty of groups that are stepping up to change that.  So a former colleague of mine, Gordon Smith, a former Republican Senator, lost his son to suicide 10 years ago.  And I remember him speaking so eloquently about it.  Gordon is now the head of the National Association of Broadcasters, and today, the National Association of Broadcasters is announcing a new campaign designed to change attitudes about mental illness through TV ads and social media,   because Gordon doesn’t want other parents to go through the agonizing loss that he’s endured.  So we thank you, Gordon, for that great work.  (Applause.)

You’ve got secondary school principals who are holding assemblies on mental health.  You’ve got organizations like the YMCA who are volunteering to train staff to recognize the signs of depression and other mental illnesses in our young people.  You got leaders from different faith communities who are getting their congregations involved.  And dozens of other organizations have today made similar commitments, so we’ve very thankful to all of you.

There are other people who are leading by example.  My great friend, Patrick Kennedy, when he was running for reelection back in 2006, he could have avoided talking about his struggles with bipolar disorder and addiction.  Let’s face it, he’s a Kennedy.  (Laughter.)   He was -- his seat was pretty safe.  Everybody loved him.  And yet, Patrick used his experience as a way to connect and to lift up these issues, not hide from them. 

And one day, a woman came up to Patrick at a senior center and told him she was afraid to tell her friends she was taking medication for a mental illness because she was worried they might treat her differently.  She told Patrick, “You’re the only one who knows aside from my son.”  And so Patrick started realizing how much power there could be for people to speak out on these issues.  And Patrick carried these stories back with him to Washington, where he worked with a bipartisan group of lawmakers, including his dad, to make sure the mental health services you get through your insurance plan at work are covered the same way that physical health services are -- a huge victory.  (Applause.) 

So because of Patrick's efforts and the colleagues who worked with him, it's easier for millions of people to join him on the road to recovery, which brings me to a second point.  It’s not enough to help more Americans seek treatment -– we also have to make sure that the treatment is there when they're ready to seek it. 

For years now, our mental health system has struggled to serve people who depend on it.  That’s why, under the Affordable Care Act, we’re expanding mental health and substance abuse benefits for more than 60 million Americans.  (Applause.)  New health insurance plans are required to cover things like depression screenings for adults and behavioral assessments for children.  And beginning next year, insurance companies will no longer be able to deny anybody coverage because of a pre-existing mental health condition.  (Applause.) 

We’re also investing in science and basic research to make it easier to diagnose and treat disease early.  And earlier this year, I announced an ambitious initiative to develop tools for mapping the human brain, which could help scientists and researchers unlock the answers to conditions that affect mental health.

We’re also doing more to support our troops and our veterans who are suffering from things like traumatic brain disorder -- or traumatic brain injury or PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.  Today, we lose 22 veterans a day to suicide -- 22.  We've got to do a better job than that of preventing these all too often silent tragedies.  That’s why we’ve poured an enormous amount of resources into high-quality care and better treatment for our troops. 

And today, under Ric Shinseki's leadership, the VA is going even further.  They’re partnering with 24 communities in nine states to help reduce wait times for veterans seeking mental health care.  And they're -- they’ve met their goal of hiring 1,600 new mental health providers, which means this summer they're going to hold more than 150 summits like this one in communities all across the country so that every one of our servicemembers and veterans understand -- just like you take care of yourself and each other on the battlefield, you’ve got to do the same thing off the battlefield.  That’s part of being strong.

For many people who suffer from a mental illness, recovery can be challenging.  But what helps more than anything, what gives so many of our friends and loved ones strength, is the knowledge that you are not alone.  You’re not alone.  You’re surrounded by people who care about you and who will support you on the journey to get well.  We're here for you.

And that’s what this conference is about.  That’s why these issues are so important.  So if there's anybody out there who's listening, if you’re struggling, seek help. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  Thank you, Mr. President. 

THE PRESIDENT:  You're welcome.  (Applause.)  If you know somebody who is struggling, help them reach out.  Remember the family members who shoulder their own burdens and need our support as well.  And more than anything, let people who are suffering in silence know that recovery is possible.  They’re not alone.  There's hope.  There's possibility.  And that’s what all of you represent with the extraordinary advocacy and work that you've already done.

So thank you all for being here.  Let’s do everything we can to help our fellow Americans heal and thrive.  And now I’d like to turn it over to Secretary Sebelius who will be leading our opening panel. 

Thank you very much, everybody.  (Applause.) 

END
10:15 A.M. EDT

Close Transcript

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Statement by the Vice President on the Passing of Senator Frank Lautenberg

Frank Lautenberg’s work created immediate benefits for tens of thousands of Americans and he was one of my closest friends in the Senate. The son of working class immigrants, Frank served honorably in World War II, went to college on the G.I. bill and came back to build one of the most successful companies in America. He’s the reason why people can’t smoke on airplanes, why domestic abusers can’t possess guns. He worked tirelessly against drunk driving, and co-wrote the new G.I. Bill because he knew first-hand what it could do. I consider it a privilege to have known him, to have worked with him, and to have called him my friend. Jill and I will truly miss Frank. Our hearts go out to his children and his wife Bonnie.

In the latest installment of Vice President Biden's audio series "Being Biden," the Vice President remembers Sen. Lautenberg. Listen to the audio HERE.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 6/3/2013

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room

1:22 P.M. EDT

MR. CARNEY:  Good Monday, everyone.  Thanks for being here.  Hope you had a nice weekend, hot as it was.  Before I take your questions, let me tell you that on Thursday, June 6th, as part of his Middle Class Jobs and Opportunity Tour, the President will travel to Mooresville Middle School in Mooresville, North Carolina to deliver remarks and experience firsthand the school’s cutting-edge curriculum through digital learning.

In his State of the Union address, the President laid out his belief that the middle class is the engine of economic growth in our country.  To reignite that engine, there are three areas we need to invest in:  jobs, skills, and opportunity.  We need to build on the progress we’ve made over the last four years, and that means investing in those areas that are already creating good-paying, stable jobs that can support a middle-class family.

With that, I will take your questions.  Julie Pace.

Q    Thanks, Jay.  I wanted to get the White House’s response to what’s happening in Turkey right now, particularly Erdogan questioning the legitimacy of the protestors in what seems to be an increased police reaction to those protests.

MR. CARNEY:  Thank you for the question.  We continue to follow the events in Turkey closely and with concern.  As we stated from the outset last week, the United States supports full freedom of expression and assembly, including the right to peaceful protest, as fundamental to any democracy.

We believe that the vast majority of the protestors have been peaceful, law-abiding, ordinary citizens exercising their rights.  The United States has serious concerns about the reports of excessive use of force by police and large numbers of injuries and damage to property.  We call on these events to be investigated and to urge all parties to refrain from provoking violence.

Q    Has the President spoken with Erdogan since these protests started?

MR. CARNEY:  He has not.  I have no calls to report.  I refer you to the State Department for any outreach that they might have had with the Turks, but no calls from here to report.

Q    And just more broadly, given Turkey is important to so many of the issues that the U.S. deals with in that part of the world, how key is stability in Turkey to the President?

MR. CARNEY:  Turkey is a very important ally.  And look, all democracies have issues that they need to work through and we would expect the government to work through this in a way that respects the rights of their citizens.  I think that we continue to work with Turkey on a range of issues -- as a NATO ally and as a key player in the region -- and we look forward to doing that.

Q    And just on a totally separate topic -- Darrell Issa over the weekend called you a “paid liar” for the administration.  I wanted to give you an opportunity to respond to his comment.

MR. CARNEY:  I hadn’t heard that.  That’s amazing.  (Laughter.)  I’m not going to get into a back and forth with Chairman Issa.  I think that what our focus is and has been is the need to find out all the inappropriate activity that occurred; make sure, as the President insists, that those who are responsible for inappropriate, outrageous activity be held accountable; that processes are put into place at the IRS so that something like this cannot happen again.

The President acted, as you know, in response to the independent Inspector General’s report by making clear that he was outraged by the behavior; by acting quickly to install new leadership at the IRS; by instructing that new leadership to conduct a thorough review that would examine the behavior, hold those accountable who were responsible for it, and to examine the overall culture at the IRS to make sure that these kinds of things can't happen again.

I would note that when I spoke about the situation I was referring to the findings of the independent Inspector General, who -- let’s be clear -- said that he both in testimony and in his report found no evidence that outsiders -- those outside the IRS -- influenced the behavior that took place there.  That is the conclusion of the independent Inspector General, and we certainly have seen no other evidence to contradict that.

However, the President is interested in getting all the facts, and that is why he has instructed that the new leadership at the IRS conduct this review.  We are interested in legitimate congressional oversight.  That's an important component in a situation like this to finding all the facts and making sure that remedial action is taken.  And, as you know, there is a criminal investigation that is being undertaken by the Department of Justice. 

So I think there is ample demonstration of this administration’s interest in getting all the facts and holding those who are responsible accountable.

Thanks.  Steve.

Q    To follow up on Turkey, does the unrest in Turkey make it harder to deal with the Syria situation?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we work very closely with Turkey on the situation in Syria, with our allies and partners in the region, and we’ll continue to do that. 

I believe, as I said, that the -- we expect and we believe that the Turkish government will appropriately work through this situation.  We call on the events that occurred to be investigated and urge all parties to refrain from provoking violence.  And we think that the right of free expression and assembly, those rights are fundamental to democracy.

And we have concerns about some of the response, but we certainly expect the Turkish government to work through this.

Q    There was a story in the paper over the weekend saying there was some displeasure inside the White House with Eric Holder.  Does the President feel like Eric Holder is becoming a distraction?

MR. CARNEY:  It’s important to note that, I believe in the article you’re referring to, the Chief of Staff was quoted on the record, and in that statement he spoke for the President and he spoke for all of us.  And he said that, “The President and his team at the White House believe that the Attorney General has the intellect, experience, and integrity to efficiently run the Department of Justice and not get distracted by the partisans who seem more interested in launching political attacks than cooperating with him to protect the security and constitutional rights of the American people.”

And I think I couldn’t say it any better, so I quoted the Chief of Staff saying it.

Q    Just to button down the Issa thing, finally -- they point specifically to two instances in the briefing where you said on May 21st, referred to apparent conduct by our IRS officials in Cincinnati; and on May 20th, line IRS employees in Cincinnati improperly scrutinized 501-(c)(4) organizations.  When you made those statements --

MR. CARNEY:  Those are the findings of the audit conducted by the independent Inspector General, correct?  Those are the findings, right?  I was citing -- and perhaps there are issues that the Chairman has with the IG.  I was citing the findings of the independent Inspector General.  As you recall, we waited for that report to be released before responding.  The President responded I think with appropriate concern and took immediate action, and is continuing to direct those who are responsible for these matters to take action.

Again, the Inspector General concluded in his report and testified to this before Congress that he found no evidence of outside influence on the behavior that was of such great concern to all of us at the IRS.  It is also important to note the President has instructed the new acting commissioner of the IRS to conduct a review that looks at this activity; holds responsible those who were responsible for it -- holds accountable those who are responsible for it; and takes measures to ensure that it can’t happen again.

Separately, we are cooperating with legitimate congressional oversight.  Separately, the Department of Justice has launched a criminal investigation.

So I think it’s important to stick to the facts, look at the work that has been done and build on it -- which is what this President wants to do, what the new acting commissioner wants to do, the Treasury Secretary wants to do.  And we certainly hope that that’s what the congressional oversight committees hope to do.

Q    Robert Gibbs, this morning, called on Darrell Issa to apologize to you.  Do you expect or want an apology?  And is this the kind of language you think is productive?

MR. CARNEY:  I appreciate those who have spoken in my defense, but I would simply say that I am not interested in having a back and forth with Chairman Issa.  I am interested in what the President is interested in, in this matter, which is that we take action to ensure that this activity doesn’t happen again; we take action to hold accountable those who are responsible for it; we cooperate with legitimate congressional oversight; and we obviously cooperate with any investigation that the Department of Justice is undertaking.

Those are the things that matter here.  And, again, I don’t want to get into a back and forth.

Q    And just finally, this weekend, David Plouffe sent out a Tweet that’s pretty inflammatory in itself, bringing up old allegations against Darrell Issa.  Is that the kind of back and forth that’s actually productive, moving the agenda forward?

MR. CARNEY:  I would simply say that I’m not interested in that back and forth -- or having a back and forth with the Chairman.  I, again, as I think we’ve just discussed, spoke very carefully and specifically about the findings of the independent Inspector General in his lengthy review of the conduct at the IRS.  I spoke, in fact, quite clearly that we have seen no evidence that contradicts the findings of the independent Inspector General.  I would point you to the testimony of the former IRS Commissioner that makes clear the lack of involvement of people outside of the IRS, to his knowledge and in his view.  And, again, we have no information that would contradict that.

The President’s focus is on taking action to hold accountable those who are responsible for this behavior, taking action to ensure that it never happens again, because it’s very important that the American people have faith that the IRS applies our tax laws fairly across the country.  And that’s why he was so outraged by the actions that were reported by the Inspector General, and that is why he has acted in response in the way that he has.

Q    So, Jay, on a different IRS subject -- has the President seen the IG report -- it was supposed to come out tomorrow -- which talks about waste at the IRS and it talks about, in fact, the IRS employees using presidential suites at conferences.  Does the President think that’s appropriate?

MR. CARNEY:  No.  Well, in answer to your question, we haven’t seen the report, but, no, he doesn’t think that conduct is appropriate.  I would point you to statements released by the acting IRS Commissioner, Danny Werfel, who says, “This conference is an unfortunate vestige from a prior era.  Taxpayers should take comfort that a conference like this would not take place today.  Sweeping new spending restrictions have been put place at the IRS, and travel and training expenses have dropped more than 80 percent since 2010, and similar large-scale meetings did not take place in 2011, 2012, or 2013.”

And, second, I would point out that the President has made creating an efficient and effective government a priority, a cornerstone of his administration.  He believes that everyone in this administration must take their role as stewards of the taxpayer dollar very seriously.  That is why in May of 2012 the administration outlined a series of actions for reining in spending and increasing both transparency and oversight of federal conference and travel activity.  The federal government spending on travel, which includes conference activity, was reduced by more than $1 billion in fiscal year 2012 as compared to fiscal year 2010.

On travel spending, agencies have lowered their spending on travel -- compared to FY 2010 levels -- by roughly $2 billion.  The Department of Agriculture, for example, reduced travel costs by over $125 million.  The Drug Enforcement Administration implemented mandatory policy guidance requiring employees to use lowest-available fares for air travel, and due to this policy alone, DEA achieved over $6.5 million in savings in fiscal year 2012. 

These are examples that illustrated a commitment the President has to wringing out waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars.  And it’s important to note that Danny Werfel, who is now the acting commissioner over at the IRS, oversaw that process at the OMB when he was at the OMB.

Q    How important is this to the White House, a report like this, because of the confidence that is needed in the IRS in order to perform its duties?  It doesn't have enough agents to investigate all of us.  It depends upon public trust.  Are you concerned that public trust is, in fact, being hurt by both of these scandals?  And especially, is, in fact, the IRS a broken agency at this time that needs a thorough review?

MR. CARNEY:  The answer is the President is very concerned by the activity that has been reported by the independent Inspector General with regards to the targeting of conservative groups applying for tax exempt status.  He is concerned by -- and has been -- excessive spending by the IRS and other agencies when it comes to conferences and travel, and has taken action accordingly.

It’s very important, and your question implies this, that the American people have faith that the IRS in particular is applying our tax laws in a fair and responsible way.  And that's why he has ordered a review after installing new leadership at the IRS, and he expects that review to be unsparing and to hold accountable people who are responsible for inappropriate conduct. 

And we’ll also cooperate with congressional oversight, and we, of course, will cooperate with the Department of Justice’s criminal investigation into this matter.  But it is precisely because of the President’s concern that he articulated right away after the IG report was released that these actions are being undertaken.

Q    Jay?

MR. CARNEY:  Yes.

Q    Do you believe that Chairman Issa is contributing to trust in the IRS with his oversight by insisting he believes the orders to target conservative groups came out of Washington?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I don't want to get into a back and forth.  We believe that there’s an important role to be played by Congress through legitimate oversight.  We take this matter very seriously, which is why the President has ordered the actions that he has ordered, and why the new acting commissioner of the IRS is proceeding with the review that this President and the Secretary of the Treasury committed him to perform.

It’s why we will cooperate with both congressional oversight and Justice Department investigations -- because this is a serious matter and it needs to be addressed.  And that’s our focus.  And I think that when it comes to getting the facts, we need to get them and not make judgments before we have all the facts.  And I think that that is why we made the decision to wait for the publication of the independent Inspector General’s report.  Even though the issue itself had become public and there was a great demand for comment on it, we believed it was the right thing to do not to comment on it before it was public because it would have been inappropriate in our view to in any way intervene in a process that wasn’t complete.  And that is what we did.  And when that report became public, the President acted very quickly and he spoke very clearly about his outrage over this conduct.

Q    Is the Congress exercising legitimate oversight?  Do you see legitimate oversight?

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to get into a play-by-play or a review of congressional activity day by day, but I believe that congressional oversight -- we believe that congressional oversight is important when it’s legitimate, and we think that this is a matter that should be looked at by Congress through the process of legitimate congressional oversight. 

But we think it’s important to stay focused on what we know, what the facts are, the information we know from the report conducted by the independent Inspector General, and then to build on that through the review being overseen by the new commissioner at the IRS, through the congressional oversight role and through the investigation undertaken by the Department of Justice.

Q    On another subject -- can you comment on Ezra Klein’s book indicating that the President has agreed to support his former Secretary of State in 2016?

MR. CARNEY:  I confess that I was not aware of that report, but I’ll run out and buy the book or purchase it online.  I can assure you the President is not thinking about the next presidential election, having just recently won the last one.

Yes.

Q    If I could ask you quickly, Jay, about the -- considering the White House’s fierce efforts to try to stop leaks in terms of national security secrets and the like, today, Bradley Manning’s trial begins and I wanted to get a sense from you.  His attorney said just a short time ago -- he described him as a young, naïve, but well-intentioned man.  What’s the White House’s perspective on Bradley Manning, given the fact that you guys are prosecuting this -- the administration is?

MR. CARNEY:  Inherent in your question is the recognition that there’s an ongoing trial, so I couldn’t comment on an ongoing trial.  I would refer you to the prosecutors in the Department of Justice on that matter.  It is certainly our view -- broadly speaking, not referring to any specific case -- that leaks of national security -- sensitive national security information, classified information, can be very harmful to our national security interests.

Q    I want to ask you quickly about the comments we heard from the President a short time ago as part of this mental health conference taking place today.  He said that the VA is partnering with 24 communities in nine states to help, among other things, reduce wait times, to provide better access to mental health care for veterans; that they’ve recently hired 1,600 mental health providers and there are going to be, I think, 150 summits that he referred to today.  How is that going to be paid for?

MR. CARNEY:  I would have to refer you to HHS and to the VA.  I don’t have that information for you.  I think that mental health is an important issue that is often stigmatized.  It is a component of our gun violence problem.  That is why this conference was a piece of the executive action, a portion of the report that the Vice President put together and the President has acted on when it comes to reducing gun violence in America.  But, obviously, it touches on a range of issues that -- not just limited to gun violence, but a range of issues.

Q    And then on that topic, is the White House concerned that furloughs that we’ve now learned are taking place already at Walter Reed, I think at Fort Belvoir, that 3,500 civil employees are going to be furloughed at those places?  That accounts for like 94 percent at Walter Reed.  Are you concerned about the impact that will have on services for veterans, including mental health?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t know enough about the specific breakdowns of the furloughs and the effects or impacts in different areas to say with any specificity about what harm might be done.  It is certainly the case that the furloughs caused by sequester are having effects across the country -- real consequences for real people.  We’ve seen it in reports about the elimination, in some cases, of Meals on Wheels programs or the sharp reduction in the provision of Meals on Wheels programs for seniors.  We’ve seen it in the elimination of slots for Head Start children.  And certainly we’re seeing it in areas affected by the Defense budget. 

And we knew that this would be the case, and that is why implementing bad policy was always a bad idea -- not something to be celebrated, not something to call a political victory for the tea party or any party, because there are real people who suffer the consequences of these arbitrary, across-the-board cuts -- unnecessary cuts in the sense that we can and should do better by making wise decisions about how we reduce our deficit, reducing it in a balanced way, the way that the President has been forward again and again in his budget proposals and in his offers to Republican leaders on Capitol Hill. 

So this doesn’t have to happen.  It didn’t need to happen.  And the President certainly hopes that we can reach a compromise on budget issues that prevents this from continuing to happen.

Q    And the final topic is immigration.  Chuck Schumer said, I think on “Meet the Press”, that he basically predicted by July 4th that as many as 70 senators would pass a bipartisan immigration bill through the Senate, acknowledging there are going to be some challenges when it reaches the House.  Marco Rubio, though, today said that the immigration bill “needs improvements to pass.”  So I’m curious what improvements the President thinks need to be made to help this pass.

MR. CARNEY:  I’d say a few things.  One, the President continues to be encouraged by the progress being made in the Senate on comprehensive immigration reform.  That process has now passed through committee, and we look forward to a robust debate and expect the legislation to move forward in a timely manner.

As we have said, the Senate legislation may not contain every specific element we have called for, but it does represent an important step towards the broad principles the President has made clear need to be part of common-sense immigration reform.  And so we look forward to continuing to work with Congress as the bill moves forward, and we will continue to advance the President’s priorities as part of that process.

But that process is ongoing; a lot of work remains to be done.  We believe that the bill that emerged from committee reflects the President’s principles, and we believe that the bill that passes through the Senate, with bipartisan support, should and needs to reflect the President’s principles.  And we will be engaged in that process as it moves through the Senate and beyond.

But I think it’s important to note that there’s a lot of work to be done here, and we’ve seen with a variety of issues over time that victory can be declared early.  And this is real work because it’s something that requires bipartisan broad support.  That support exists, the President believes, but it requires some elbow grease and some real grit and determination to get from here to completion.

Mark.

Q    Jay, a minute ago you mentioned the reductions in government travel costs.  Is there any effort on the part of the President to reduce travel costs -- his travel costs?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, broadly speaking, the White House, as you know, has been affected by this sequester, and measures have been taken both to reduce costs here, as well as we’ve had to have furloughs in the White House Office. 

The President is President of the United States 24 hours a day and 7 days a week, as was the case with every one of the President’s predecessors.  And the nature of -- the way that he travels is very much a part of the office that he holds and is a requirement of that office, and he needs to be able to conduct his presidency in order to fulfill his obligation to the American people and the oath he took.

So we are, in a variety of ways that I think OMB and others have spelled out, and I can -- and we can get you more information on that if you’d like -- taking action to reduce costs to deal with the sequester and some of that action includes furloughs.  But I don't have anything more specific for you on that.

Roger.

Q    Thank you.  Later this week, the President meets with the President of China out in California.  It’s supposed to be partly a getting-acquainted session, but the President is also going to be bringing up hacking -- computer hacking and so forth.  Does the President want to come away from that meeting with some deliverables?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would, first of all, make the point that the President is acquainted with President Xi.  They met prior to President Xi’s accession to the presidency.  But it is important now that he holds that office and President Obama has recently been reelected for this meeting to take place.  And President Obama very much looks forward to it.

There is a broad array of topics that the two leaders will discuss, and certainly, cybersecurity will be one of them.  I would say that this is a discussion, and we’re not trying to telegraph specific actions or so-called deliverables.

The relationship that we have with China is broad and complex, and it is very important for these kinds of meetings to take place for that relationship to be developed, for us to work on greater cooperation where we have been able to cooperate, find new areas to cooperate, and also confront directly those areas where we disagree.  And that has been the approach of this administration in our relations with China from the time the President took office.  And we believe it’s the right approach.

Q    Mr. Donilon was over there.  Did he come back saying it’s going to be really tough on -- talking on this subject?

MR. CARNEY:  National Security Advisor Tom Donilon had an excellent visit to China where he met with an array of top government officials and military officials and obviously reported back to the President on that meeting.

And the President’s meeting with President Xi will build upon the meetings that National Security Advisor Donilon had.  But again, I think that Mr. Donilon felt that his visit was a successful one.

Mara.

Q    On Thursday, is there a legislative tie-in to this visit other than calling attention to this curriculum?  Is he going to be asking Congress to do something specific?  What’s the --

MR. CARNEY:  I don't want to preview the event or the President’s remarks more than I just did except to say broadly that, yes, the President believes Congress should be focused on what the American people are focused on.

Q    What specifically is he --

MR. CARNEY:  Again, I’m not going to preview specifics from the President’s event or the remarks, but there are a variety of actions that we believe Congress ought to join us in moving on.  You heard the President address some of those, I believe, in his weekly address.  And there is ample room for bipartisan action on an agenda that would strengthen the middle class, provide it more security and help it expand.

And the middle class -- middle-class opportunity is the absolute cornerstone of our economy, and it has been the primary focus of the President’s domestic policy since the day he took office.  It’s the primary focus of his economic and domestic agenda in his second term.

And it’s an important thing to remember that even as we deal with an array of issues here in Washington, that this is the thing -- this is the set of issues that the American people broadly care most deeply about because it affects their capacity to have and keep a job that can sustain a middle-class life; their capacity to send their children to college; their capacity to take care of their mothers and fathers as they grow old.  And the President is deeply concerned about and focused on the need to make the middle class more secure and to create more opportunity for the middle class. 

So that's why this event is taking place on Thursday.  It’s part of a series that he’ll be engaged in, and he absolutely expects Congress to join him in taking action to assist and empower the middle class.

Q    To that end, could you tell us if the shrinking of the deficit is making it harder for the President to get the bipartisan deal that he wants with Republicans in order to make all the investments that he talks about on these trips?  I mean, he’s been searching for people to negotiate with him, but the deficit is coming down without either side doing anything.  So is that having an effect?

MR. CARNEY:  Let me take issue with that last sentence, because the deficit is coming down as sharply as it has been because the President and Congress did do something.  They took direct action in 2009 that prevented a catastrophic recession from becoming a depression.  They took direct action to pass the Affordable Care Act, which has, by any measure, helped bring down the growth in the cost of health care.  They took direct action to write and pass a Wall Street reform law that will ensure that the kind of financial crisis that so battered our economy and the global economy cannot happen again.  They took direct action to save the American automobile industry, an industry that is very much a part of American history and our sense of who we are, and also a great engine for economic growth and job creation.  So let me be clear about that.

But the President thinks we need to continue to take action to invest in our economy so it grows -- to ensure that the jobs we need for the 21st century are created here; to ensure that we’re taking action to enhance our energy independence; and to reduce our deficit in a responsible way -- to continue to reduce our deficit in a responsible way.  And he has had a number of conversations with Republican lawmakers about the need to find common ground on achieving just that.

But he has always looked at it as part of an overall approach to economic policy that is focused first and foremost on economic growth and job creation; and as part of that project, responsible deficit reduction. 

So he believes that we can do that.  He believes that there are Republicans who want to do that, and we just have to see if there is a coalescing of will to make it happen.  You’ve seen the President’s offers.  They were very explicit in his budget -- very explicit in his budget as a reflection of the offer he made at the end of last year.  And the offer is on the table, and it demonstrates the President’s willingness to compromise, demonstrates the seriousness with which he approaches these issues, and he hopes that he’ll find partners in moving it forward.

Q    Earlier this spring, a lot of attention was paid to the so-called “charm offensive”.  The President took Republican lawmakers out to dinner and had meetings with them and called them on the phone.  And I’m wondering if that outreach has continued, or was that sort of a one-time, kind of one-moment deal?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, first of all, it can't be one time if there were a series of meetings and conversations and dinners. Those conversations continue.  It was fairly recently that Senator McCain -- who is obviously a leading Republican in the Senate and a major player on a variety of key issues, both domestic and national security -- was here visiting the President.  And we will continue to have those engagements both at the presidential level and at the sub-presidential level. 

The President is sincere in this effort.  He believes that we can find common ground, both on deficit reduction and budget issues as well as on immigration reform -- because some of these conversations and meetings the President has had with Republican lawmakers haven’t just been on deficit reduction and budgets, they’ve been on immigration reform.  They were and will continue to be, hopefully, on ways we can reduce gun violence.  They’ll be on and have been on ways that we can invest in our economy and build out our infrastructure to create jobs now and help our economy grow in the future.  So that effort continues.

Q    Are there some more recent engagements you can tell us about?

MR. CARNEY:  You mean in the last few days?  You can't declare something over after a few days, Phil.  I think that we need to -- everybody needs to take a breath.  And I know that the media cycle is what it is, but the President is fully engaged with members of Congress in both parties and will continue to be.

And he has pressed with -- in every one of these meetings, for a willingness to find common ground.  He has shown his willingness to compromise, and he has been encouraged by the sentiments expressed by some Republican lawmakers to do the same.  And where there are opportunities to find that compromise and get something done on behalf of the American people, the President will seize them, and he’ll continue to have those conversations in search of them.

Jackie.

Q    I want to go back to China.  It wasn’t clear to me from your answer to Roger’s question whether there will be deliverables come out of that.  And just what would you expect to come out of it?  Would there be some sort of a joint statement?  Any appearance?  Can you tell us anything about the format over Friday evening and Saturday?

MR. CARNEY:  Well, we’ll have more details about the specifics of the engagements and the conversations.  But the two Presidents plan to discuss the full range of diplomatic, economic and security issues on the U.S.-China agenda -- from the perspective of identifying shared interests and finding ways to work together to solve regional and global challenges, and discussing how to manage differences in a manner that ensures a stable and productive bilateral relationship.  They’ll talk about their domestic economic situations -- these are the two largest economies in the world -- and the steps that each will take to promote sustained international -- sustained, rather, and balanced global growth because of the impact that these two economies have on global growth. 

I think it’s important, while I wanted to assure Roger that it wasn’t just a get-to-know-you session, that this is more -- it’s deeper than that; that this is not a 1970s-style summit where there are pre-negotiated outcomes.  This is very much part of an ongoing engagement that we have with the Chinese leadership at the presidential level and at all the levels in government.  And it’s very important, because of the size of our economies, the interdependence that we have as engines of global economic growth, the various issues where we cooperate, and the various issues where we don’t see eye to eye on all things.  And so sustaining that relationship and maintaining that engagement is very critical in the interest of the United States globally.

Q    Will there be any access for the press to the leaders?  Any questions?

MR. CARNEY:  I’m not sure that we’ve announced anything yet.  We’ve been working through that, and hopefully we’ll have more specifics for you in the near future. 

Q    How might this redefine the whole Asia pivot?  Because up until now, it’s been really a -- seemed to be that the United States reasserting itself in the Pacific Rim region, reassuring the other Pacific Rim nations that it stands as a bulwark against China.  So how does this fit this effort to sort of reset relations with the two leaders more personal?  How does that fit into the more general Asia policy?

MR. CARNEY:  We’ve made clear, or tried to, that our rebalancing, our pivoting to Asia has not been against any nation, not against China, but for the important role that the United States has traditionally and needs to continue to play in that region.  The President made clear as a candidate and after he took office that he felt that we had, as a nation, turned away from Asia because of our largely understandable focus on the Middle East, but that that came at a cost to long-term U.S. interests.  And he was determined to rebalance our foreign policy and our international economic policy in a way that made clear the importance that Asia -- the importance of Asia and the role that Asia plays in the 21st century, both economically and on security matters. 

But this is not a zero-sum thing; it’s not against China at all.  And that’s why our engagement with China is part of the overall rebalancing, part of the focus on Asia that we need as a nation because of the explosive economic growth in the region, because of the huge potential in the region, because of the need to maintain stability and foster the expansion of economic growth and human rights in the region.  

So we -- it doesn’t contrast with the effort we’ve been making; it complements it in our view.  And I would note that, throughout this period, we have -- the President has engaged frequently with his Chinese counterpart, President Xi’s predecessor.  And we have, as an administration, have engaged with Chinese leadership all along, even as we have engaged in Asia and deepened our presence in Asia in a variety of different ways with a variety of different nations.

Yes, Mark, and then April.

Q    Does the President have a view on this issue?  The Supreme Court decided today whether the police have a right to take DNA samples from people who are being booked, who have been arrested as opposed to having to wait until they’ve been --

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t had that conversation with him.  The decision had come down before the meeting I had with him or that I was in with him, but it did not come up in the meeting, so I don’t know.

Q    -- take that question?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t know that we’ll have a comment on the case from here, but if we do, we’ll be sure to get it to you.

April.

Q    Following up on Supreme Court issues and matters -- the Supreme Court is supposed to make a decision on voting rights, whether to uphold certain portions of voting rights.  Is the White House expecting -- bracing for disappointment on that?  Because as late as February, some persons within the administration were saying that they didn’t hold out a lot of hope.

MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t want to prejudge a decision that has not been produced yet by the Supreme Court, so I won’t do that.  But this is obviously an issue that we consider very important and we will look with interest upon the decision.  But before we see it, I think I’ll refrain from commenting on it.

Q    And also, another question.  This weekend was very loud with that quote, “paid liar.”

MR. CARNEY:  Oh.  I didn’t know what you meant by very loud, but okay.  (Laughter.)

Q    That quote was very loud -- I’m just telling you -- and it brought you into focus, and you are the mouthpiece for the President and his White House.  Did the President talk to you about that?

MR. CARNEY:  April, I won’t get into my personal conversations with the President.  I can just tell you that I am not interested in a back and forth with the Chairman.  I am interested in what I believe most who in Washington are looking at this issue are interested in, which is what the President’s focus is on, which is that we need to get -- make sure we know everything that happened here and that those who were responsible for inappropriate conduct are held accountable, and that actions are taken so that it doesn’t happen again.  And that’s our focus. 

So I appreciate the effort to get me to get into a back and forth , but I’m not going to do it.

Q    That’s not bringing you into a back and forth.  I mean, you talked about the back and forth in the front row.  I’m now asking you, as the person who is the speaker for the White House beyond -- I mean, you’re the first line, I guess, before the President, and you have now been brought into the fray with this with your spin.  Did the President discuss this with you after that quote became so loud this weekend?

MR. CARNEY:  I haven’t -- well, I’m not going to get into conversations -- personal conversations, private conversations with the President -- between me and the President or the President and anyone else.  What I will tell you is that we’re focused on the substantive issues.  And I think that that comment has been evaluated by plenty of people, and I will refrain from doing it myself.

Leslie.

Q    Jay, can you say -- Secretary Kerry said earlier today that the U.S. is going to sign the U.N. Arms Treaty.  Do you have any idea of when the President might do that?  And do you have any updates?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a timing announcement to make.  I think, as you’re aware, or those of you who follow this issue know, that while we look forward to signing the treaty, there are remaining translation issues that have to be satisfactorily resolved.  Because of the procedures involved, we anticipate this will not happen before the end of August. 

So I don’t have anything more specific for you, but I think as you -- if you’ve followed this, there’s been an issue because the treaty -- I think the treaty was negotiated in English but then, obviously, translated into a number of languages, as is common, and there were some discrepancies found in those translations that need to be resolved.  And that will take some time.

Q    Do you have any expectations about that it will get through the Senate?

MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have any predictions to make.  We obviously look forward to signing it and we believe it’s in the interest of the United States, and we’ll work on furthering that effort once we get it signed. 

I think I’ve been told to wrap it up, so thanks very much.

END
2:08 P.M. EDT

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Presidential Memorandum -- Emergency Leave Transfer Program for Federal Employees Adversely Affected by the Severe Storms and Tornadoes in Oklahoma

MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

SUBJECT: Emergency Leave Transfer Program for Federal Employees Adversely Affected by the Severe Storms and Tornadoes in Oklahoma

I am deeply saddened by the devastating losses caused by the severe storms and tornadoes in Oklahoma and their aftermath. The Federal Government has mobilized to respond to this major disaster, and many Federal employees are dealing with overwhelming personal losses.

To further assist Federal employees and their family members adversely affected by the storms and tornadoes in Oklahoma, I hereby direct the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to establish an emergency leave transfer program, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 6391. The program will permit employees in the executive and judicial branches, or an agency leave bank established under 5 U.S.C. 6363, to donate unused annual leave for transfer to employees of the same or other agencies (or the judicial branch) who were adversely affected by the storms and tornadoes in Oklahoma and who need additional time off for recovery. I further direct OPM to provide additional guidance to agencies on the program's administration.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Presidential Memorandum -- Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY
THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
THE SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE
THE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
PRESIDENT OF THE EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

SUBJECT: Delegation of Certain Functions and Authorities Under the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby order as follows:

I hereby delegate functions and authorities vested in the President by the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Public Law 112-239) (22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) (IFCA), as follows:

• Section 1244(c)(1) and (c)(2) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;

• Section 1244(d)(1)(A) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note), as amended (ISA), are selected pursuant to section 1244(d)(1)(A), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Section 1244(d)(2) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;

• Section 1244(f) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury;

• Section 1244(i) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury;

• Section 1245(a)(1)(A) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1245(a)(1)(A), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Sections 1245(a)(1)(B) and (C) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1245(a)(1)(B) or (C), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Section 1245(c) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;

• Section 1245(e) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury;

• Section 1245(f) to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury commensurate with their respective areas of responsibility, in consultation with each other;

• Section 1245(g) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury;

• Section 1246(a)(1)(A) to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury commensurate with their respective areas of responsibility, in consultation with each other, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1246(a)(1)(A), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Sections 1246(a)(1)(B)(i) and (ii) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1246(a)(1)(B)(i) or (ii), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Section 1246(a)(1)(B)(iii) to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury commensurate with their respective areas of responsibility, in consultation with each other, the Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1246(a)(1)(B)(iii), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Section 1246(a)(1)(C) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1246(a)(1)(C), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA;

• Section 1246(d) to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury commensurate with their respective areas of responsibility, in consultation with each other;

• Section 1246(e) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury;

• Section 1247(a) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State;

• Section 1247(f) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury;

• Section 1248(b)(1) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, with respect to the requirement to impose applicable sanctions pursuant to

the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA) described in section 105(c) of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-195) (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.) (CISADA), and with respect to the requirement to include the sanctioned persons on the list of specially designated nationals and blocked persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the Department of the Treasury;

• Section 1248(b)(1) to the Secretary of State, with respect to the requirement to impose visa sanctions described in section 105(c) of CISADA;

• Section 1248(b)(3) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, with respect to application of section 401(b) of CISADA to IEEPA sanctions imposed under section 1248(b)(1)(A) of IFCA;

• Section 1248(b)(3) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to application of section 401(b) of CISADA to visa sanctions imposed under section 1248(b)(1)(A) of IFCA;

• Section 1252(a) to the Director of National Intelligence, in consultation with the Secretaries of State and the Treasury;

• Section 1253(a) to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of State, commensurate with their respective areas of responsibility outlined in this memorandum;

• Section 1253(c)(1) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretaries of the Treasury and Commerce and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate;

• Section 1253(c)(2) to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Treasury commensurate with their respective areas of responsibility, in consultation with each other, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the Secretary of Homeland Security, the President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and other agencies as appropriate, and, once applicable sanctions outlined in section 6(a) of ISA are selected pursuant to section 1244(d)(1)(A), 1245(a)(1), or 1246(a)(1) (including in each case as informed by section 1253(c)(2)), authority to implement such sanctions is delegated to the relevant agency heads commensurate with any delegation of such authorities and consistent with any relevant Executive Orders implementing ISA.

I hereby delegate functions and authorities vested in the President by CISADA, as amended by section 1249 of IFCA, as follows:

• Section 105C(b) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State, with respect to the determinations described in sections 105C(b)(1);

• Section 105C(b) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, with respect to the requirement to submit any lists of persons determined to meet the criteria described in sections 105C(b)(1), to the appropriate congressional committees as required by sections 105C(b);

• Section 401(b) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, with respect to the requirement to include a person on the list described in section 105C(b);

• Sections 105C(a)(1) and 401(b) to the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, with respect to the requirement to impose or maintain applicable sanctions pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA) under section 105C(a)(1);

• Section 105C(a)(1) to the Secretary of State, with respect to the requirement to impose or maintain visa sanctions; and

• Section 401(b) to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security on matters related to admissibility or inadmissibility within the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security, with respect to functions and waiver authorities regarding the requirement to impose or maintain visa sanctions under sections 105C(a)(1).

Any reference in this memorandum to provisions of any Act related to the subject of this memorandum shall be deemed to include references to any hereafter-enacted provisions of law that is the same or substantially the same as such provisions.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Message to Congress -- Iran

TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), I hereby report that I have issued an Executive Order (the "order") that takes additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995, and implements certain statutory requirements of the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Public Law 112-239) (22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) (IFCA), which amends the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-195) (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.) (CISADA).

In Executive Order 12957, the President found that the actions and policies of the Government of Iran threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States. To deal with that threat, the President declared a national emergency and imposed prohibitions on certain transactions with respect to the development of Iranian petroleum resources. To further respond to that threat, Executive Order 12959 of May 6, 1995, imposed comprehensive trade and financial sanctions on Iran. Executive Order 13059 of August 19, 1997, consolidated and clarified the previous orders. To take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 and to implement section 105(a) of CISADA, I issued Executive Order 13553 on September 28, 2010, to impose sanctions on officials of the Government of Iran and other persons acting on behalf of the Government of Iran determined to be responsible for or complicit in certain serious human rights abuses.

To take additional steps with respect to the threat posed by Iran and to provide implementing authority for a number of the sanctions set forth in the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-172) (50 U.S.C. 1701 note) (ISA), as amended by CISADA, I issued Executive Order 13574 on May 23, 2011, to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to implement certain sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State pursuant to ISA, as amended by CISADA. I also issued Executive Order 13590 on November 20, 2011, to take additional steps with respect to this emergency by authorizing the Secretary of State to impose sanctions on persons providing certain goods, services, technology, or support that contribute either to Iran's development of petroleum resources or to Iran's production of petrochemicals, and to authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to implement some of those sanctions. On February 5, 2012, in order to take further steps pursuant to this emergency, and to implement section 1245(c) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (22 U.S.C. 8513a), I issued Executive Order 13599 blocking the property of the Government of Iran, all Iranian financial institutions, and persons determined to be owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, such parties. On April 22, 2012, and May 1, 2012, I issued Executive Orders 13606 and 13608, respectively. Executive Orders 13606 and 13608 each take additional steps with respect to various emergencies, including the emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 concerning Iran, to address the use of computer and information technology to commit serious human rights abuses and efforts by foreign persons to evade sanctions.

To take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, I issued Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012, imposing further sanctions in light of the Government of Iran's use of revenues from petroleum, petroleum products, and petrochemicals for illicit purposes; Iran's continued attempts to evade international sanctions through deceptive practices; and the unacceptable risk posed to the international financial system by Iran's activities.

Most recently, I issued Executive Order 13628 of October 9, 2012, to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 and to implement certain statutory requirements of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) (22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.) (TRA), including its amendments to the statutory requirements of ISA and CISADA.

With respect to the order that I have just issued, section 1 of the order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose financial sanctions on or to block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of a foreign financial institution determined to have, on or after the effective date of the order:

• knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction related to the purchase or sale of Iranian rials or a derivative, swap, future, forward, or other similar contract whose value is based on the exchange rate of the Iranian rial; or

• maintained significant funds or accounts outside the territory of Iran denominated in the Iranian rial.

Section 2 of the order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of any person upon determining:

• that the person has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any Iranian person included on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (SDN List) (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599) or any other person included on the SDN List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this paragraph or Executive Order 13599 (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599); or

• pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, that sanctions shall be imposed on such person pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(A) of IFCA.

Section 3 of the order authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to impose financial sanctions on a foreign financial institution determined to have knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction:

• on behalf of any Iranian person included on the SDN List (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599) or any other person included on the SDN List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection 2(a)(i) of the order or Executive Order 13599 (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599); or

• on or after the effective date of the order, for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran.

Section 5 of the order authorizes the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, to impose sanctions on a person upon determining that the person:

• on or after the effective date of the order, knowingly engaged in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran;

• is a successor entity to a person determined to meet that criterion;

• owns or controls a person determined to meet that criterion, and had knowledge that the person engaged in the activities referred to therein; or

• is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person determined to meet that criterion, and knowingly participated in the activities therein.

Sections 6 and 7 of the order provide that, for persons determined to meet any of these criteria, the heads of the relevant agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall implement the sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State. Those sanctions may include the following actions:

• the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank shall deny approval of the issuance of any guarantee, insurance, extension of credit, or participation in an extension of credit in connection with the export of any goods or services to the sanctioned person;

• agencies shall not issue any specific license or grant any other specific permission or authority under any statute that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or reexport of goods or technology to the sanctioned person;

• for a sanctioned person that is a financial institution: the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shall take such actions as they deem appropriate, including denying designation, or terminating the continuation of any prior designation of, the sanctioned person as a primary dealer in United States Government debt instruments; or agencies shall prevent the sanctioned person from serving as an agent of the United States Government or serving as a repository for United States Government funds;

• agencies shall not procure, or enter into a contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from the sanctioned person;

• the Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the United States, any alien that the Secretary of State determines is a corporate officer or principal of, or a shareholder with a controlling interest in, a sanctioned person;

• the heads of the relevant agencies, as appropriate, shall impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person any of the sanctions described above, as selected by the Secretary of State;

• the Secretary of the Treasury shall take actions where necessary to:

o prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits to the sanctioned person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, unless such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities;

o prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;

o prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;

o block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person, (including any foreign branch) of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in;

o prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person;

o restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person; or

o impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person any of the sanctions described above, as appropriate.

Section 7 of the order also provides that, when the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined that sanctions shall be imposed on a person pursuant to sections 1244(d)(1)(A), 1245(a)(1), or 1246(a)(1) of IFCA (including in each case as informed by section 1253(c)(2) of IFCA), such Secretary may select one or more of the sanctions described above for which the Secretary of the Treasury shall take such action, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall take actions where necessary to implement those sanctions.

Sections 8 and 11 of the order implement the statutory requirements of CISADA, as amended by section 1249 of IFCA. They authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to block all property and interests in property that are in the

United States, that come within the United States, or that are or come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch), and the Secretary of State to suspend entry into the United States, of persons determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State:

• to have engaged, on or after January 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the diversion of goods, including agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices, intended for the people of Iran;

• to have engaged, on or after January 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the misappropriation of proceeds from the sale or resale of goods described above;

• to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the activities described above or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to these provisions; or

• to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to these provisions.

I have delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury the authority, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA, as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the order, other than the purposes described in sections 5, 6, and 11 of the order. All agencies of the United States Government are directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of the order.

The order, a copy of which is enclosed, becomes effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 1, 2013.

BARACK OBAMA

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Statement by the Press Secretary on the Announcement of Additional Sanctions Related to Iran

Today the President approved a new Executive Order (E.O.) to further tighten U.S. sanctions on Iran and isolate the Iranian government for its continued failure to meet its international obligations.  

This new action targets Iran’s currency, the rial, by authorizing the imposition of sanctions on foreign financial institutions that knowingly conduct or facilitate significant transactions for the purchase or sale of the Iranian rial, or that maintain significant accounts outside Iran denominated in the Iranian rial.  While the rial has lost half of its value since the beginning of 2012 as a result of our comprehensive sanctions, this is the first time that trade in the rial has been targeted directly for sanctions.

Taking aim at a major revenue generator for Iran, the E.O. authorizes the imposition of new sanctions against those who knowingly engage in significant financial or other transactions for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with Iran’s automotive sector, building on the sectoral sanctions in the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (IFCA) that target Iran’s shipping, shipbuilding, and energy sectors. 

Further increasing the pressure on the Iranian government, the E.O. authorizes the imposition of additional sanctions on persons who provide material support to Iranian persons and certain other persons designated pursuant to Iran sanctions authorities that are included on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) maintained by the Department of the Treasury. 

The E.O. also implements and builds upon certain sanctions set forth in the IFCA, signed into law by the President on January 2, 2013, as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. 

Pursuant to today’s action, the following activities will be subject to sanctions:

The Iranian Rial:  The significant transactions for the purchase, sale of, or holding of significant funds or accounts outside Iran denominated in the Iranian rial. 

Iran’s Automotive Sector:  The sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the manufacturing or assembling in Iran of light and heavy vehicles including passenger cars, trucks, buses, minibuses, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles, as well as original equipment manufacturing and after-market parts manufacturing relating to such vehicles. 

Material Support to the Government of Iran:  Providing material support to Iranian persons and certain other persons designated pursuant to Iran sanctions authorities that are included on the SDN List (in each case other than certain Iranian depository institutions).  This provision includes an exception for certain Iranian depository institutions and certain activities relating to the pipeline project to supply natural gas from the Shah Deniz gas field in Azerbaijan to Europe and Turkey.

The steps taken today are part of President Obama’s commitment to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, by raising the cost of Iran’s defiance of the international community.  Even as we intensify our pressure on the Iranian government, we hold the door open to a diplomatic solution that allows Iran to rejoin the community of nations if they meet their obligations.  However, Iran must understand that time is not unlimited.  If the Iranian government continues down its current path, there should be no doubt that the United States and our partners will continue to impose increasing consequences.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
June 03, 2013

Executive Order -- Authorizing the Implementation of Certain Sanctions Set Forth in the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 and Additional Sanctions with Respect To Iran

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

AUTHORIZING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CERTAIN SANCTIONS
SET FORTH IN THE IRAN FREEDOM AND COUNTER-PROLIFERATION ACT
OF 2012 AND ADDITIONAL SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO IRAN

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.) (IEEPA), the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-195) (22 U.S.C. 8501 et seq.) (CISADA), the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (subtitle D of title XII of Public Law 112-239) (22 U.S.C. 8801 et seq.) (IFCA), section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C. 1182(f)), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and in order to take additional steps with respect to the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957 of March 15, 1995,

I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, hereby order:

Section 1. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has, on or after the effective date of this order:

(i) knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant transaction related to the purchase or sale of Iranian rials or a derivative, swap, future, forward, or other similar contract whose value is based on the exchange rate of the Iranian rial; or

(ii) maintained significant funds or accounts outside the territory of Iran denominated in the Iranian rial.

(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may:

(i) prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by such foreign financial institution; or

(ii) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of such foreign financial institution, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 2. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a person the measures described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining:

(i) that the person has materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any Iranian person included on the list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons maintained by the Office of Foreign Assets Control (SDN List) (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599 of February 5, 2012) or any other person included on the SDN List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this paragraph or Executive Order 13599 (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599); or

(ii) pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, that sanctions shall be imposed on such person pursuant to section 1244(c)(1)(A) of IFCA.

(b) With respect to any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of such person are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.

(c) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 3. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to impose on a foreign financial institution the sanctions described in subsection (b) of this section upon determining that the foreign financial institution has knowingly conducted or facilitated any significant financial transaction:

(i) on behalf of any Iranian person included on the SDN List (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599) or any other person included on the SDN List whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to subsection 2(a)(i) of this order or Executive Order 13599 (other than an Iranian depository institution whose property and interests in property are blocked solely pursuant to Executive Order 13599); or

(ii) on or after the effective date of this order, for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran.

(b) With respect to any foreign financial institution determined by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with this section to meet the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section, the Secretary of the Treasury may prohibit the opening, and prohibit or impose strict conditions on the maintaining, in the United States of a correspondent account or a payable-through account by such foreign financial institution.

(c) Subsection (a)(i) of this section shall apply with respect to a significant financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution for the purchase of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran only if:

(i) the President determines under subparagraphs (4)(B) and (C) of subsection 1245(d) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (Public Law 112-81) (2012 NDAA) (22 U.S.C. 8513a) that there is a sufficient supply of petroleum and petroleum products from countries other than Iran to permit a significant reduction in the volume of petroleum and petroleum products purchased from Iran by or through foreign financial institutions; and

(ii) an exception under subparagraph 4(D) of subsection 1245(d) of the 2012 NDAA from the imposition of sanctions under paragraph (1) of that subsection does not apply.

(d) Subsection (a)(i) of this section shall not apply with respect to a significant financial transaction conducted or facilitated by a foreign financial institution for the sale, supply, or transfer to or from Iran of natural gas only if the financial transaction is solely for trade between the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution and Iran, and any funds owed to Iran as a result of such trade are credited to an account located in the country with primary jurisdiction over the foreign financial institution.

(e) Subsection (a)(i) of this section shall not apply to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction for the provision of agricultural commodities, food, medicine, or medical devices to Iran.

(f) The prohibitions in subsection (b) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 4. Subsections 2(a) and 3(a)(i) of this order shall not apply with respect to any person for conducting or facilitating a transaction involving a project described in subsection (a) of section 603 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-158) (22 U.S.C. 8701 et seq.) to which the exception under that section applies.

Sec. 5. The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the United States Trade Representative, and with the President of the Export-Import Bank, the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and other agencies and officials as appropriate, is hereby authorized to impose on a person any of the sanctions described in section 6 or 7 of this order upon determining that the person:

(a) on or after the effective date of this order, knowingly engaged in a significant transaction for the sale, supply, or transfer to Iran of significant goods or services used in connection with the automotive sector of Iran;

(b) is a successor entity to a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a) of this section;

(c) owns or controls a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a) of this section, and had knowledge that the person engaged in the activities referred to in that subsection; or

(d) is owned or controlled by, or under common ownership or control with, a person determined by the Secretary of State in accordance with this section to meet the criteria in subsection (a) of this section, and knowingly participated in the activities referred to in that subsection.

Sec. 6. When the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of section 5 of this order, has determined that a person meets any of the criteria described in subsections (a)-(d) of that section and has selected any of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, the heads of relevant agencies, in consultation with the Secretary of State, as appropriate, shall take the following actions where necessary to implement the sanctions imposed by the Secretary of State:

(a) the Board of Directors of the Export-Import Bank shall deny approval of the issuance of any guarantee, insurance, extension of credit, or participation in an extension of credit in connection with the export of any goods or services to the sanctioned person;

(b) agencies shall not issue any specific license or grant any other specific permission or authority under any statute that requires the prior review and approval of the United States Government as a condition for the export or reexport of goods or technology to the sanctioned person;

(c) with respect to a sanctioned person that is a financial institution:

(i) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shall take such actions as they deem appropriate, including denying designation, or terminating the continuation of any prior designation of, the sanctioned person as a primary dealer in United States Government debt instruments; or

(ii) agencies shall prevent the sanctioned person from serving as an agent of the United States Government or serving as a repository for United States Government funds;

(d) agencies shall not procure, or enter into a contract for the procurement of, any goods or services from the sanctioned person;

(e) the Secretary of State shall deny a visa to, and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall exclude from the United States, any alien that the Secretary of State determines is a corporate officer or principal of, or a shareholder with a controlling interest in, a sanctioned person; or

(f) the heads of the relevant agencies, as appropriate, shall impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person the sanctions described in subsections (a)-(e) of this section, as selected by the Secretary of State.

(g) The prohibitions in subsections (a)–(f) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 7. (a) When the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined that sanctions shall be imposed on a person pursuant to section 1244(d)(1)(A), 1245(a)(1), or 1246(a)(1) of IFCA (including in each case as informed by section 1253(c)(2) of IFCA) or when the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of section 5 of this order, has determined that a person meets any of the criteria described in subsections (a)-(d) of that section, such Secretary may select one or more of the sanctions set forth below to impose on that person, and the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, shall take the following actions where necessary to implement the sanctions selected and maintained by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury:

(i) prohibit any United States financial institution from making loans or providing credits to

the sanctioned person totaling more than $10,000,000 in any 12-month period, unless such person is engaged in activities to relieve human suffering and the loans or credits are provided for such activities;

(ii) prohibit any transactions in foreign exchange that are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and in which the sanctioned person has any interest;

(iii) prohibit any transfers of credit or payments between financial institutions or by, through, or to any financial institution, to the extent that such transfers or payments are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and involve any interest of the sanctioned person;

(iv) block all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the sanctioned person, and provide that such property and interests in property may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in;

(v) prohibit any United States person from investing in or purchasing significant amounts of equity or debt instruments of a sanctioned person;

(vi) restrict or prohibit imports of goods, technology, or services, directly or indirectly, into the United States from the sanctioned person; or

(vii) impose on the principal executive officer or officers, or persons performing similar functions and with similar authorities, of a sanctioned person the sanctions described in subsections (a)(i)-(a)(vi) of this section, as selected by the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury, as appropriate.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 8. (a) All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person (including any foreign branch) of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in: any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with or at the recommendation of the Secretary of State:

(i) to have engaged, on or after January 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the diversion of goods, including agricultural commodities, food, medicine, and medical devices, intended for the people of Iran;

(ii) to have engaged, on or after January 2, 2013, in corruption or other activities relating to the misappropriation of proceeds from the sale or resale of goods described in subsection (a)(i) of this section;

(iii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, the activities described in subsection (a)(i) or (a)(ii) of this section or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or

(iv) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.

(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted prior to the effective date of this order.

Sec. 9. I hereby determine that, to the extent section 203(b)(2) of IEEPA (50 U.S.C. 1702(b)(2)) may apply, the making of donations of the types of articles specified in such section by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order would seriously impair my ability to deal with the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, and I hereby prohibit such donations as provided by subsections 1(b)(ii), 2(b), 7(a)(iv), and 8(a) of this order.

Sec. 10. The prohibitions in subsections 1(b)(ii), 2(b), 7(a)(iv), and 8(a) of this order include but are not limited to:

(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; and

(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Sec. 11. I hereby find that the unrestricted immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens who meet one or more of the criteria in subsection 2(a), section 5, and subsection 8(a) of this order would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of such persons. Such persons shall be treated as persons covered by section 1 of Proclamation 8693 of July 24, 2011 (Suspension of Entry of Aliens Subject to United Nations Security Council Travel Bans and International Emergency Economic Powers Act Sanctions).

Sec. 12. The Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State, is hereby authorized to take such actions, including the promulgation of rules and regulations, and to employ all powers granted to the President by IEEPA as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this order, other than the purposes described in sections 5, 6, and 11 of this order. The Secretary of the Treasury may redelegate any of these functions to other officers and agencies of the United States Government consistent with applicable law.

Sec. 13. (a) Any transaction that evades or avoids, has the purpose of evading or avoiding, causes a violation of, or attempts to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

(b) Any conspiracy formed to violate any of the prohibitions set forth in this order is prohibited.

Sec. 14. For the purposes of this order:

(a) the term "automotive sector of Iran" means the manufacturing or assembling in Iran of light and heavy vehicles including passenger cars, trucks, buses, minibuses, pick-up trucks, and motorcycles, as well as original equipment manufacturing and after-market parts manufacturing relating to such vehicles.

(b) the term "entity" means a partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization;

(c) the term "financial institution," as used in sections 6 and 7 of this order, includes:

(i) a depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) (12 U.S.C. 1813(c)(1)), including a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as defined in section 1(b)(7) of the International Banking Act of 1978) (12 U.S.C. 3101(7));

(ii) a credit union;

(iii) a securities firm, including a broker or dealer;

(iv) an insurance company, including an agency or underwriter; and

(v) any other company that provides financial services;

(d) the term "foreign financial institution," as used in sections 1 and 3 of this order, means any foreign entity that is engaged in the business of accepting deposits, making, granting, transferring, holding, or brokering loans or credits, or purchasing or selling foreign exchange, securities, commodity futures or options, or procuring purchasers and sellers thereof, as principal or agent. It includes but is not limited to depository institutions, banks, savings banks, money service businesses, trust companies, securities brokers and dealers, commodity futures and options brokers and dealers, forward contract and foreign exchange merchants, securities and commodities exchanges, clearing corporations, investment companies, employee benefit plans, dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels, and holding companies, affiliates, or subsidiaries of any of the foregoing. The term does not include the international financial institutions identified in 22 U.S.C. 262r(c)(2), the International Fund for Agricultural Development, the North American Development Bank, or any other international financial institution so notified by the Secretary of the Treasury;

(e) the term "Government of Iran" includes the Government of Iran, any political subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including the Central Bank of Iran, and any person owned or controlled by, or acting for or on behalf of, the Government of Iran;

(f) the term "Iran" means the Government of Iran and the territory of Iran and any other territory or marine area, including the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf, over which the Government of Iran claims sovereignty, sovereign rights, or jurisdiction, provided that the Government of Iran exercises partial or total de facto control over the area or derives a benefit from economic activity in the area pursuant to international arrangements;

(g) the term "Iranian depository institution" means any entity (including foreign branches), wherever located, organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran, or owned or controlled by the Government of Iran, or in Iran, or owned or controlled by any of the foregoing, that is engaged primarily in the business of banking (for example, banks, savings banks, savings associations, credit unions, trust companies, and bank holding companies);

(h) the term "Iranian person," as used in sections 2 and 3 of this order, means an individual who is a citizen or national of Iran or an entity organized under the laws of Iran or otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran;

(i) the terms "knowledge" and "knowingly," with respect to conduct, a circumstance, or a result, mean that a person has actual knowledge, or should have known, of the conduct, the circumstance, or the result;

(j) the term "person" means an individual or entity;

(k) the term "petroleum" (also known as crude oil) means a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists in liquid phase in natural underground reservoirs and remains liquid at atmospheric pressure after passing through surface separating facilities;

(l) the term "petroleum products" includes unfinished oils, liquefied petroleum gases, pentanes plus, aviation gasoline, motor gasoline, naphtha-type jet fuel, kerosene-type jet fuel, kerosene, distillate fuel oil, residual fuel oil, petrochemical feedstocks, special naphthas, lubricants, waxes, petroleum coke, asphalt, road oil, still gas, and miscellaneous products obtained from the processing of: crude oil (including lease condensate), natural gas, and other hydrocarbon compounds. The term does not include natural gas, liquefied natural gas, biofuels, methanol, and other non-petroleum fuels;

(m) the term "sanctioned person" means a person that the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to authority delegated by the President and in accordance with the terms of such delegation, has determined is a person on whom sanctions shall be imposed pursuant to section 1244(d)(1)(A), 1245(a)(1), or 1246(a)(1) of IFCA (including in each case as informed by section 1253(c)(2) of IFCA), and on whom the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury has imposed any of the sanctions in section 6 or 7 of this order or a person on whom the Secretary of State, in accordance with the terms of section 5 of this order, has determined to impose sanctions pursuant to section 5;

(n) for the purposes of this order, the term "subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of Iran" means a person organized under the laws of Iran or any jurisdiction within Iran, ordinarily resident in Iran, or in Iran, or owned or controlled by any of the foregoing;

(o) the term "United States financial institution" means a financial institution as defined in subsection (c) of this section (including its foreign branches) organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States or located in the United States; and

(p) the term "United States person" means any United States citizen, permanent resident alien, entity organized under the laws of the United States or any jurisdiction within the United States (including foreign branches), or any person in the United States.

Sec. 15. For those persons whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States, I find that because of the ability to transfer funds or other assets instantaneously, prior notice to such persons of measures to be taken pursuant to this order would render those measures ineffectual. I therefore determine that for these measures to be effective in addressing the national emergency declared in Executive Order 12957, there need be no prior notice of an action taken pursuant to subsection 1(b)(ii), 2(b), 7(a)(iv), or 8(a) of this order.

Sec. 16. Executive Order 13622 of July 30, 2012, is hereby amended as follows:

(a) Subsection (a)(ii) of section 1 is amended by replacing "for the purchase or acquisition of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran" with "for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran".

(b) Subsection (a)(iii) of section 1 is amended by replacing "for the purchase or acquisition of petrochemical products from Iran" with "for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran".

(c) Subsection (a)(i) of section 2 is amended by replacing "knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, engaged in a significant transaction for the purchase or acquisition of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran" with "knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, engaged in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petroleum or petroleum products from Iran".

(d) Subsection (a)(ii) of section 2 is amended by replacing "knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, engaged in a significant transaction for the purchase or acquisition of petrochemical products from Iran" with "knowingly, on or after the effective date of this order, engaged in a significant transaction for the purchase, acquisition, sale, transport, or marketing of petrochemical products from Iran".

(e) Subsection (e) of section 10 is amended by inserting the words "dealers in precious metals, stones, or jewels," after the words "employee benefit plans,".

Sec. 17. All agencies of the United States Government are hereby directed to take all appropriate measures within their authority to carry out the provisions of this order.

Sec. 18. This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Sec. 19. The measures taken pursuant to this order are in response to actions of the Government of Iran occurring after the conclusion of the 1981 Algiers Accords, and are intended solely as a response to those later actions.

Sec. 20. This order is effective at 12:01 a.m. eastern daylight time on July 1, 2013.

BARACK OBAMA