Washington, DC–(ENEWSPF)–July 29, 2015 – 1:35 P.M. EDT
MR. SCHULTZ: Good afternoon. I have one announcement here at the top, and then we will take your questions.
On Monday, President Obama will address the second class of 500 Mandela Washington Fellows at the Young African Leaders Initiative Presidential Summit. The President will give brief remarks and then take questions from the fellows who represent every country in sub-Saharan Africa. The event will be a capstone to the President’s trip to Africa where he affirmed his commitment to young people across the continent and entrepreneurial approaches to common challenges.
As you all know, the Young African Leaders Initiative, launched by President Obama in 2010, connects the United States to the next generation of leaders across sub-Saharan Africa and provides them with the leadership skills, networks, and professional opportunities that will allow them to make a meaningful impact in their countries and communities.
With that, Nancy, I’m happy to take your questions.
Q Can the White House confirm the death of Mullah Omar? And what can you tell us about the circumstances of his death?
MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Nancy. We are aware of the death — of reports of the death of Mullah Omar. Without commenting on the specifics of these reports, we do believe the reports of his death are credible. Beyond that, I’m not going to be in a position to comment on the specifics surrounding his death.
Q So if he died in 2013, what would that say about intelligence cooperation with the Pakistanis? When would the U.S. have had this on their radar screen?
MR. SCHULTZ: Nancy, I can tell you that the intelligence community is looking at these reports and continues to assess the circumstances around his death. But beyond that, I’m not going to be in a position here to speak candidly about what we know at this point. I’m sure that when the IC has an update, or anything determinative, they’ll be in a position to update you.
Q Can you preview what the President’s message is going to be to the House Democrats today? Does he have some kind of a new approach or message that he’s bringing with him?
MR. SCHULTZ: I don’t think he has a new approach or message. I think the message that he’ll be offering tonight on Iran will be very similar to the public case he’s been making now for a few weeks since the deal in Vienna was reached. As you know, he’s been making the case publicly both through interviews and through taking your questions. And we have also had our representatives on the Hill. Secretary Kerry, Secretary Moniz, Chairman Dempsey, I believe, are on the Hill this morning fielding questions for members of Congress. We’ve also had extensive consultations from the White House and other briefings to Congress.
But at the end of the day, the President’s message is simple, which is if you want to cut off Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, this deal is the best way to do it, in that none of our critics have offered a more credible — any alternative, other than going to war. And I think that’s the case the President is going to make to House Democrats tonight.
I don’t want to leave you with the impression that we believe Iran will be the only topic of discussion. I imagine that will be extensively covered, but I think other legislative priorities like Ex-Im Bank, the transportation bill, and probably the budget could also very likely come up.
Q And is there growing expectation by the White House that the President is going to be likely to need to exercise a veto option on this?
MR. SCHULTZ: Nancy, we are confident that the arguments that we are making are going to prevail at the end of the day. As you know, 150 House Democrats sent a letter back in May supporting the President’s efforts and the initial political framework that was announced in Lausanne. We actually feel that we’ve exceeded the standard that was established in Lausanne.
So as I think you’ve seen over the past couple days, the number-two Democrat in the United States Senate, Dick Durbin, came out in support of the deal. Yesterday, Congressman Levin, who I don’t think anyone could argue with his support for the state of Israel, made a very compelling case about how this deal is in the interest of the Israeli people. So we’re going to continue to press the case. As I mentioned, our Cabinet officials are on the Hill today. The President will be meeting with House Democrats later this evening. And we’re going to continue to make this case.
Julia.
Q Yes. Recently, this morning, the CEO of Boeing said that he was actively considering moving key pieces of the company’s business to other countries because of the lapse of the Ex-Im Bank. I also know President Obama has made some comments on Boeing over his trip. Has he spoken to the CEO about this issue?
MR. SCHULTZ: I don’t have any specific calls to read out, but I can assure you that the President feels strongly that Congress needs to act and reauthorize Ex-Im Bank. I think, since you follow this closely, you are well aware that Ex-Im Bank has supported 164,000 American jobs, and the export jobs — jobs supported by exports — pay up 18 percent more on average than other jobs.
And beyond that, the Export-Import Bank is a vital tool for small businesses. Nearly 90 percent of Ex-Im Bank transactions directly supported small businesses in 2014. So we feel strongly that this is an institution that is a driver of economic growth and a supporter of American jobs.
Q Also, there’s been a growing outcry over the killing of this lion in Zimbabwe by — allegedly by an American dentist. And also, U.S. Fish and Wildlife said that they are looking into the incident and possibly working with Zimbabwean officials who have called to bring this person to justice. Is the White House, or is President Obama aware of this killing? And what could the President do at an executive level to possibly keep U.S. trophy hunters from traveling to Africa and committing these acts?
MR. SCHULTZ: Julia, I’ve seen the press reports on this. I don’t have much for you. I have not spoken to the President about this. As you point out, it has been widely covered in the news. And as we know, he’s a voracious consumer of news, so it wouldn’t surprise me that he’s aware of it, but I don’t have any detail to read out for you right now.
Justin.
Q I wanted to go back to Ex-Im, kind of, but within the confines of the highway bill, which Josh has said before is sort of the legislative package that you were hoping to see Ex-Im attached to. So my question first is if you guys have a reaction to the apparent agreement on a short-term highway bill. And secondly, if you think that it was at all a mistake for the White House to have endorsed that short-term bill out of the House early, before the Senate had come with a plan that was both longer and had Ex-Im kind of grafted on top of it.
MR. SCHULTZ: Justin, you’re right — Josh did suggest that the highway transportation bill would be a good vehicle to attach Ex-Im Bank. And fortunately, leaders in the United States Senate, both Republicans and Democrats, agreed. And there were votes, as that bill was progressing, where Democrats and Republicans came together in a bipartisan coalition — a rare bipartisan coalition that we see these days — in order to attach Ex-Im Bank to the highway bill. We feel like that was the right thing to do.
In terms of the pending transportation bill that you’re referencing, as the President has said, we as a country cannot continue to rely on short-term patches as an approach to funding long-term infrastructure needs.
With that said, since surface transportation authorization does expire at the end of July, just a few days from now, the unfortunate reality is that due to inaction, Congress will need to pass this other short-term extension to keep federal funding for America’s surface transportation system flowing. And the President would sign that.
Q But, I mean, to get back to the question, was it a tactical mistake to back the House bill that didn’t have Ex-Im attached and was only short-term? Even though we kind of know the President would sign short-term bills, it kind of forced House Democrats to back this package where maybe if they’d held out, they could have had leverage to get the Senate bill in front of the House.
MR. SCHULTZ: Justin, that’s not how we see it. Reauthorizing Ex-Im Bank has happened 16 times in past Congresses, all with broad bipartisan majorities. The past 13 Presidents — Republicans and Democrats — have supported the bank. So this time should not have been any different.
As we’ve said, one of the more likely vehicles to pass Congress over the past few weeks is this transportation bill. That’s why we thought it should have been attached, and that’s why the Senate apparently shared our view.
Unfortunately, you had the Speaker of the House use a word to describe Leader McConnell’s bill — a word that I can’t even use in public. So —
Q Well, maybe behind the podium. (Laughter.)
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes. From the podium. (Laughter.) Fair enough. But if you’re asking me to evaluate the level of dysfunction in the Republican Congress, I’m happy to engage you on that because it’s rare that we’ve seen this level of distrust between two leaders of separate chambers but from the both parties.
And if you just take a step back and you look at what we’ve experienced over the past few days and weeks, I would like to first remind you of the aftermath of the 2014 midterms where Leader McConnell and Speaker Boehner jointly penned an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal where they thought — they felt confident in their ability to get Congress working again. Well, I think we know that the results are in, and I’m not confident they lived up to their promise.
Right now what they’re focused on is an ideological rider to defund Planned Parenthood. They’re dealing with strife within their own party. And they’re leaving town early to get a head start on their six-week break. If you put that side by side with their inability to authorize Ex-Im Bank; that we’re on the precipice of the Highway Trust Fund running out in the height of construction season; and that they have the gall to leave town without even touching cybersecurity legislation — we think that’s revelatory of their priorities, and we think those are misplaced priorities.
Q One last thing. On Keystone, Senator Hoeven said yesterday that sources had told him that there would be a sort of release over the August recess of you guys rejecting the pipeline. That prompts I think a number of questions. The first is whether the State Department has, at this point, finished its review or informed the White House in any way of where the review is. If not, what the status of it is. It’s sort of the constant question. And then whether there will be a review at the White House after the State Department comes to its decision, and what the timeline of that would be.
MR. SCHULTZ: Justin, your term for constant question is generous. Our answer is going to be the same, which is, as you know, this is under a review process at the State Department. That particular process is a process that predates this administration, so I’m not going to have any update for you from here.
Q Well, then was Senator Hoeven either misinformed or lying about what he had heard about —
MR. SCHULTZ: I haven’t read Senator Hoeven’s remarks.
Q I can relay them to you, though. He said in August that you guys would reject the pipeline on that odd quiet Friday.
MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. I appreciate Senator Hoeven’s remarks here. I’m not sure I would classify him as a confidant of our State Department. But you should check with him to see what he’s basing that off of.
Byron.
Q Thank you, Eric. Two inspectors general concluded that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had classified material on her home server, emails that were classified when they were sent and remain classified. What’s the White House reaction to this?
MR. SCHULTZ: Bryon, I can say a couple things about this. First, this administration takes the role of inspector generals very seriously. They serve an extremely important purpose. So when they raise a possible issue, it’s important to look into it.
Equally important is our commitment to properly handling classified and sensitive information. For very obvious reasons we have to make sure that those materials are handled in accordance with all the right protocols. And I can assure you that all of us in government who work with those materials take that responsibility very seriously.
I know that the State Department is equally committed to both of those principles, and that’s Secretary Kerry has said he’s going to be discussing this with his inspector general this week. And I also know that Secretary Kerry wants to get to the bottom of this, hear what the concerns are, and then figure out if they need to take any action. So I think that’s the right step, and we support him doing so.
Q You mentioned the role that inspectors general play and how important they are. How come the White House didn’t nominate anyone to fill that role while Secretary Clinton was at State? And do you bear any responsibility in this situation for not doing that?
MR. SCHULTZ: Bryon, just like our conversation with Justin, I know that’s a frequent question here. And I can assure you that we do take the role of inspector generals very seriously. And I believe just because there wasn’t a Senate-confirmed inspector general at the State Department at this time, that doesn’t mean that office wasn’t very active.
Q Are you satisfied with the answers you’ve gotten from Secretary Clinton publicly about the situation?
MR. SCHULTZ: I think what Secretary Clinton has demonstrated is a commitment to not only transparency. That’s why she has asked the State Department to review and release all of those emails, and we think that’s appropriate.
Kelly.
Q On Iran, with the reception today, what is it about the environment of a reception and the East Room that you think will be effective in trying to change minds or lock in positions among Democrats?
MR. SCHULTZ: I think my boss coined a phrase here called a working reception, which, as he said, is the worst of both worlds. (Laughter.) So I’ll credit him with that.
But, yes, I do think this is going to be an opportunity for the President to speak directly to members here at the White House. I think he will likely make some opening remarks and talk about his view on this, his perspective, and then I think it’s likely he takes some questions. I imagine he takes questions from members who have them. And then I also think it’s likely that they have some time to talk one-on-one in more of a social setting.
So I think this will be a good opportunity for him to make the case for why we believe this is not only a deal that’s in the best interest of the United States but also one for the region.
Q Would you take a request for the opening remarks to be open press?
MR. SCHULTZ: I’m happy to take that request, but I believe that these circumstances — we’ve traditionally kept this closed press. But I can assure you that the message that he is going to deliver is one that will be very familiar to all of you.
Jim.
Q Let me first ask you about the situation with Mullah Omar. I appreciate that you were able to semi-confirm his death, saying that the reports are credible — I guess that’s almost a confirmation. But if this happened two years ago, is there a problem with American intelligence that we didn’t know that he died either by a drone strike or tuberculosis or something, and we’re not reporting it until today?
MR. SCHULTZ: Jim, I fully appreciate the question. Unfortunately, I’m just not going to be in a position to comment on the specifics of these reports and those circumstances. So it’s hard for me to answer that question in some detail without confirming what presupposes that question.
Q Well, okay, then take out the causes of death, if you would, and just the fact that you believe those are credible reports that he is dead. Those reports also said he died two years ago. Why did the United States intelligence not know about that? That, I don’t think, could cause you to comment on the causes of death or anything else. It does ask what’s the problem with — is there a problem with our intelligence agencies.
MR. SCHULTZ: Jim, I don’t think there’s a problem. In fact, the intelligence agencies are right now reviewing these reports, reviewing the specific circumstances. And as soon as there’s anything definitive that we can share with you, that I suspect you will want to scrutinize at that time would be appropriate. But we’re just not in a position to do that today.
Q Switching subjects just a moment to Cleveland, Ohio, or outside Cleveland, Ohio. There was another incident where an undocumented immigrant was involved in a — is charged now with murder. And he had been, according to reports, picked up before that by local police. There were no charges to be made then, but they did realize he was undocumented and called, they say, the Border Patrol, which would probably be the wrong agency to call. But if they called ICE — but, at any rate, they didn’t — they were told, no, we’re not going to pick him up. My question to you is, on the White House level of this, do you believe, as Donald Trump has been saying, that what’s really needed is a wall to prevent this type of incident?
MR. SCHULTZ: Thank you, Jim, for the question. I would refer you to ICE for the specifics on any case like the one you mentioned. I can tell you that if any Republican wants to dedicate more resources to securing the border, then they should go ahead and support comprehensive immigration reform. That is a bill that passed the Senate with Republicans and Democrats and the support of this President, and would allocate unprecedented resources toward securing the border. And so if any Republican, either ones running for President or not, want to take a significant step in that direction, then they should go ahead and urge the House leadership to bring that bill up for a vote. We’re not even urging the House leadership to vote for it; we just want there to be a vote because we’re confident it would pass.
Q But Trump believes it’s a wall, not comprehensive immigration reform. Does the White House, because of these incidents, believe that a wall would help with that?
MR. SCHULTZ: I don’t think that’s our take. What we think are that these episodes do demonstrate the need to eliminate the patchwork of immigration laws around our country and to pass a comprehensive bill. In fact, it was none other than Marco Rubio, the junior Senator from Florida, who stated it more eloquently than I am, which is the current conditions in this country are amnesty, are a de facto amnesty. And the way to restore accountability to our national immigration system is to pass the bill, and we couldn’t agree more.
Thank you. Sunlen.
Q Thank you. A couple items to ask, but first I wanted to ask you about the CNN investigation looking into a federal program called AbilityOne, which provides work to severely disabled people. Multiple sources saying the DOJ has started an investigation into multiple allegations of widespread corruption, financial fraud; sources saying it’s the worst case of this type that they’ve seen in a federal agency. What’s the administration’s response? Are you aware of these problems?
MR. SCHULTZ: Sunlen, I did see a CNN story on that. It’s my understanding that a lot of the issues within CNN’s report are tied up in litigation, so I’m not really in a position to comment from here on that. But I would refer you to AbilityOne for their response. And I know you all have been reporting on their response.
Q Is the President aware of these problems? Because it says this group is made up of 15 presidential appointees; they report to the President. So certainly this is something that he would be concerned about, knowing that these problems —
MR. SCHULTZ: Again, I haven’t spoken to the President about this, so I’m not sure his level of awareness. But I do know that AbilityOne has been clear that they emphasize program integrity. But, again, beyond that, I know a lot of this is tied up in litigation so I’d refer you to the agency for more details.
Q And does the White House have any reaction to the indictment of Congressman Chaka Fattah?
MR. SCHULTZ: We don’t. As you know, we go to great lengths to not only avoid commenting on individual cases and prosecutions, but also to make sure that nothing we say here could be construed as interfering in an investigation. So I’m not going to have anything for you on that.
Q Okay. And you briefly alluded to Planned Parenthood, but I wondered if I could get the reaction. This latest third undercover video, very graphic images. Wondering what the administration’s response is. Has the President seen the video himself? And also, the moves by Senate Republicans and others to potentially restrict federal funding.
MR. SCHULTZ: I haven’t watched the video. I’m not sure the President has. Clearly, he has been elsewhere the past few days. But I can — we are, of course, here familiar with the news reports, including that a lot of these videos have been edited. And in response to your question about House Republicans moving to defund Planned Parenthood, we couldn’t disagree more with their actions. We believe that Planned Parenthood provides a range of important preventative care and health services — things like screenings, vaccines and check-ups to men, women and families across the country. Millions of men and women visit Planned Parenthood health centers annually, and we support them getting the types of services and health care they need.
Thank you. Jared.
Q Eric, earlier, to Justin, you described Senator Hoeven as not a close confidant of the State Department. Maybe you can concede that the former Secretary of State is slightly more intimate with the workers at the State Department. She, yesterday, in a town hall in New Hampshire, said that she believes that by the time the administration, the Obama administration is over, the Keystone XL question will be resolved. Does the White House believe that by the end of this administration the Keystone XL issue will be resolved?
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes.
Q Does Senator Hoeven and Hillary Clinton have better information about what’s dispositive here about Keystone XL, or are they just willing to tell us more than you are?
MR. SCHULTZ: I can tell you that, from the White House perspective, that this is a project that is under review at the State Department. That is a process that I know has garnered a lot of attention in this room, but it’s also a process that predates this administration. So that approval process is being handled on the merits, and when there is an update for you on it, I’m sure they’ll share it.
Q And the White House has for years given odds about the situation with the Iranian nuclear deal when it was in Vienna and when it was working through the 50/50 really bad number that we’ve been throwing around very loosely over the past few years. In the home stretch for Congress and with the vote upcoming, and whatever efforts the White House has been making, do you have some odds on what you believe, at this point, would be — whether it could be squashed by Congress or whether the White House expects at this point that Congress will be able to either approve or not disapprove of the Iran nuclear deal?
MR. SCHULTZ: Jared, I do think our arguments are going to prevail. That if you look at the case that the President has made most recently in response to questions overseas on this trip, and in the case that he’ll be making this evening to lawmakers, in the case that he’s made in interviews and press conferences here, that taking our critics head on and taking on possible criticism of the deal, that we are confident in our arguments.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. You just have to look at our opponents resorting to not merit-based arguments in order to try and find fault with this deal. Whether that is over-heated rhetoric, or whether that is Governor Walker saying he wants to prepare to take military action on day one if he were elected to the presidency — Those are the alternatives out there. And so that’s part of the reason why we feel confident in our case.
Q Do you feel certain that this will not be impeded by Congress?
MR. SCHULTZ: Jared, there are — I have other colleagues who are better gamblers than me, so I’m not going to do the odds business, but I will say that we are confident our argument is going to prevail.
Jared. I’m sorry, Jordan.
Q Thank you, Eric.
MR. SCHULTZ: Yes, or we could do a déjà vu. Do that all over again. (Laughter.)
Q A follow up on Chaka Fattah. Was the White House aware an indictment was imminent when he flew on Air Force One with the President to Philadelphia for his event on criminal justice reform?
MR. SCHULTZ: No.
Q And on the minimum wage. Leader Pelosi came out yesterday in support of a $15 minimum wage. And I’m wondering if the White House is willing to support a $15 minimum wage?
MR. SCHULTZ: Jordan, President Obama has made clear, eight years since the federal minimum wage increase last passed, that action by Congress to raise the minimum wage is long overdue. In a previous State of the Union address, we suggested Congress raise the minimum wage to $10.10. We more recently supported legislation by Senator Murray and Congressman Scott that would raise the minimum wage to $12.00 an hour by 2020.
There is a number of proposals pending before Congress. We just want them to move on one — that we believe that despite this President’s leadership in bringing this country out of an economic downturn that we haven’t seen since the Great Depression, that despite the longest stretch of private sector job growth in our nation’s history, that wages have not grown fast enough or steep enough. And that’s why the President believes that America’s workers deserve a raise.
I know that different localities, cities and states, and even private companies, are choosing to take action in light of Congress’s inaction. Those are moves we support. It’s my understanding that the current tally is 17 states and the District of Columbia have all passed minimum wage increases despite Congress’s recalcitrance. We support those efforts. But we do believe it’s going to be up to those localities to decide the best specific numbers that suit those areas.
Thank you. Doug.
Q Back to Mullah Omar. The BBC report that the Taliban has been putting out statements in his name as recently as this month. There is a new round of peace talks between the government about Ashraf Ghani and the Taliban set for this Tuesday. Who has the government of Afghanistan been negotiating with, given he’s been dead for two years now? And what would you recommend for this upcoming round of peace talks?
MR. SCHULTZ: Sure. Well, Doug, I appreciate you raising that because we do believe the Taliban has an opportunity to make genuine peace with the Afghan government and rebuild their lives in peace in Afghanistan. They can accept the government of Afghanistan’s invitation to join a peace process and ultimately become part of a legitimate political system in Afghanistan, or they can choose to continue fighting Afghans and destabilizing their own country.
So you are right in suggesting that the United States does continue to support an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned reconciliation process as the surest way to end violence in the region.
Q Changing subjects now to this side deal and the Iran nuclear agreement. Some of your Cabinet members have been taking a beating up in the Senate Armed Services Committee today on that side deal. Why did the United States not know of this side deal? Why did not the administration representatives brief Congress on this side deal when they first undertook briefings for members of Congress? And why have no members of the administration read the side deal?
MR. SCHULTZ: Sure, Doug. We should take this an opportunity to clear this up. There is no side deal. There are no secret deals between the P5+1 and Iran separate from the commitments outlined in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.
Again, this is a deal that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything we and our P5+1 partners agreed to is spelled out within that Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action announced from Vienna last week.
In terms of the documents, Congress has what we have. We have — not only are they on the website, online, but they’ve also been briefed many times over to Congress. As a standard in these agreements, there’s an arrangement specifically between the IAEA and individuals states that are confidential documents that the IAEA does not release to other states, and they have a number of very understandable and possibly obvious reasons why they don’t release documents pertaining to proliferation more widely.
But what’s important to understand is the IAEA, which are the international community’s renowned experts in this area, as well as the P5+1 — the entire international community — are absolutely confident in the agreement that was struck between the IAEA and Iran in their inspections.
Q Can you confirm that this deal allows Iran to collect its own soil samples at the Parchin facility?
MR. SCHULTZ: I think some of the details in that agreement remain classified and remain sensitive, so I’m not in a position to discuss them from here. But what I can do is I can assure you that not only is the — the international inspectors, who we all trust to monitor this, have been assured, and assured us, that they will have the access they need. But I can also tell you the P5+1 — the international community — which has an invested stake in this are also confident in the arrangement that was struck.
Q Last question. Why did Secretary Kerry, just moments ago, and Secretary Moniz, moments ago, say that they have not read the side deal? They testified to that effect.
MR. SCHULTZ: Well, I think there’s a difference between reading the side deal and any specific piece of paper and knowing what’s in it. And I think we’ve been very clear that we are not only are aware of what’s in it, but we’re entirely comfortable with it — as are the international inspectors and the scientists and the experts who have the expertise in this.
Thank you. Mark.
Q Eric, how can you say with such assurance a moment ago that there will be a decision on Keystone from State by the end of the administration?
MR. SCHULTZ: It’s my understanding that this is a process that is undergone at the State Department — again, this is a process that predates this administration. And we believe that if you check in with them for an update, they’ll offer where they are in their process.
Q Is there at all a disparity, do you think, between the years that State has been working on Keystone and the 60 days you’ve given Congress to come to a decision on the Iran nuclear deal?
MR. SCHULTZ: No.
Q Why not?
MR. SCHULTZ: Because, for us, those are entirely separate and unrelated issues — that the 60-day clock with Iran was written in a legislation that they wrote. That was a clock that they started. The Keystone decision is under review at the State Department, and it’s my understanding it had nothing to do with Senator Corkey’s legislation, which dictated the architecture of how they’re going to have oversight over the Iran deal.
Q Is the President at all impatient with how long it’s taking at State?
MR. SCHULTZ: I haven’t heard that.
Q Can you ask him?
MR. SCHULTZ: I will try.
April.
Q Eric, couple questions. I’m sure you saw back there the news conference about the police officer from the University of Cincinnati. Basically, he’s indicted and he’s been indicted essentially for losing his temper, allegedly, against a suspect. Does this administration feel that there’s need to be more training of police officers in this country, as it seems that there is somewhat of that same type of threat when we see some of these instances? Is there an effort from the Justice Department that the President is working with Loretta Lynch on along that line?
MR. SCHULTZ: April, you’re right — I know that there was a news conference going on back in Ohio just as we were coming out. So I didn’t have a chance to watch it, and obviously it’s a local case under local investigation and prosecution. So I’d refer you to them for details.
In terms of this issue at large, which I think you are referencing — as you know, the President did stand up a Task Force on 21st Century Policing to come out with a host of very serious and tangible recommendations that law enforcement across this country has been studying and have taken to heart. I don’t have an update for you on departments that have implemented those recommendations, but I know that it is a fulsome list, which we can get you. And I do know that training is a big part of that; that the President believes that in order to restore trust between certain law enforcement agencies around this country and the communities they serve, a gap that in some places has been widening, that one of the steps that local law enforcement can take is to increase their training.
Q And last question. There seems to be a serious effort to draft Vice President Biden to run for President of the United States. Has the President encouraged or talked to Vice President Biden about the possibilities?
MR. SCHULTZ: I have not spoken to the President about his private conversations with the Vice President. As you know, the President has said that the best political decision that he’s ever made in his career has been to ask Joe Biden to run as his Vice President. So he could not be more impressed and appreciative of the Vice President’s service than he is.
Q That’s the endorsement? (Laughter.)
Q And I’m going to ask one more question.
MR. SCHULTZ: You said that was your last one.
Q Well, I’m sorry — (laughter) — I changed my mind.
MR. SCHULTZ: Just checking.
Q Has there been any talk around the White House, hearing that — particularly from next door — that he could possibly throw his hat in?
MR. SCHULTZ: I haven’t heard anything about those discussions, if they’re happening or not.
Bill.
Q There are reports today that there was hacking presumably by the Chinese, at the same time of the OPM hack, against United Airlines, in which information similar to what was taken from the government — files regarding passenger lists and possibly more — could have been taken. Do you have any information?
MR. SCHULTZ: I don’t, Bill. I know that the United Airlines has put out a statement. We are certainly aware of the reports about their cyber intrusion, but I’d refer you to United for comment on their specific situation.
Q You can’t confirm the fact of the intrusion?
MR. SCHULTZ: What was the question again?
Q Can you confirm the fact of the intrusion?
MR. SCHULTZ: I’ve seen those reports, but I’d refer you to United to comment on their own.
Q You could maybe, but you’re not going to? Is that what you’re saying?
MR. SCHULTZ: What I’m saying is I’ve seen the reports, but we’re going to refer you to United to address any circumstances around their —
Q But you certainly suggest that the government must know something and it doesn’t want to talk.
MR. SCHULTZ: Bill, don’t be so cynical. I think that —
Q Moi? (Laughter.)
MR. SCHULTZ: I think, again, we’re going to let United Airlines, which presumably has very able public relations folks, field those questions.
JC.
