Hatch Praises Utah Law Enforcement in Visit to Chiefs of Police Association
SALT LAKE CITY—This afternoon, Senator Hatch praised police officers and expressed his gratitude for Utah’s law enforcement community in an address to the Utah Chiefs of Police Association at the organization's Mid-Winter Conference.
In a year fraught with increased tension between police departments and surrounding communities, Hatch sought to correct misconceptions about law enforcement, saying “The narrative that police are the enemy is false. It’s fiction. It’s a libel on the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep the rest of us safe from harm. You know that, and I know that. But unfortunately, that’s not what we see in the media.”
He continued, “I reject emphatically the false and pernicious narrative we see peddled in the media that police officers are the bad guys. You’re not. You’re the good guys—and gals. You’re the ones we turn to when we face danger or when a criminal—let’s call them what they are—threatens us or our families. You keep the peace. You keep society together. You do more good in one day than any smug Washington bureaucrat can hope to do in a year, or a decade. You’re not the bad guys. You’re heroes. And it’s time we paid you the respect you’re due.”
In a recent letter to the Utah Chiefs of Police Association, Hatch highlighted his efforts to empower and strengthen law enforcement, including legislation he has championed to fight prescription drug abuse, expedite the processing of DNA evidence, improve officer safety, facilitate active shooting training, and ensure justice for fallen officers and their families.
The full speech, as prepared for delivery, is below:
I’m here today because I want to convey to you my strong support for law enforcement and for the important work you do.
This is not an easy time to be a police officer. Many in the media, and in government, have been promulgating the pernicious view that police are the bad guys, that there is something untoward about enforcing our laws and working to keep our communities safe.
In the topsy-turvy world of these misguided critics, criminals are the oppressed. Criminals are the ones who deserve our sympathy and compassion. It’s not the drug dealer, the burglar, or the street thug that’s harming our community, producing civil unrest, and fraying the bonds that hold society together. Rather, it’s the police that are causing these problems, by enforcing unjust laws and singling out individuals for undeserved punishment.
These critics not only challenge the actions of police officers, but they challenge their motives as well. They find bias and prejudice in everyday police practices—techniques that officers have used for decades to keep our streets and homes safe from harm. They impugn the work of honest cops with long, distinguished records of service, jumping to conclusions based on nothing more than the race or background of the officer.
Every incident becomes a potential flashpoint. Officers respond to a call, or show up at a home, where they’re greeted by an agitated crowd with cell phones primed to record any potential misstep. Some individuals even taunt officers with the hope of catching something embarrassing on tape. Most problematic, an increased number of citizens are feeling emboldened to resist law enforcement, as though it’s brave or courageous to defy an officer’s commands, rather than dangerous and dumb.
The narrative that police are the enemy is false. It’s fiction. It’s a libel on the hundreds of thousands of brave men and women who put their lives on the line every day to keep the rest of us safe from harm. You know that, and I know that. But unfortunately, that’s not what we see in the media.
Now, there have always been those who criticize the police and who would rather undermine than support law enforcement. There have always been bad elements in society. But this moment feels different, and I think it is different.
And what’s different about it is the posture we’re seeing from some of our top officials in Washington and in cities around the country. When the President of the United States comes out and opines that police officers “acted stupidly” in responding to an incident before all the facts are even known, it undermines respect for law enforcement. When the State’s Attorney in a major American city reacts to a tragic death by bringing unjustified charges against the officers involved and by withholding evidence proving the officers’ innocence, it tilts the system against those who deserve our admiration and thanks. And when the federal Department of Justice takes it upon itself to act as a watchdog for purported abuses at the state and local level, well, I can think of few things more likely to weaken morale and strain relations between federal and local law enforcement.
The sad fact is that many in the current administration have taken sides against police in the ongoing struggle between effective community policing and ever-encroaching political correctness. Officials at DOJ and in other administration posts are all too eager to point out alleged mistakes and imperfections without adequately considering the tremendous pressures law enforcement officials operate under. Police officers deserve our gratitude; what they get from our federal overlords is condemnation.
Now, I do not mean to suggest that there should be no federal role in protecting against civil rights violations and other abuses. There are bad apples, and it’s important to find them and to rectify the harms they’ve caused.
But this notion that there’s bias and prejudice everywhere you look, even if you can’t see it—even if no one can see it—is absurd. Worse, it’s dangerous, because it undermines morale and leads officers to second-guess their instincts.
We’ve even reached the point now where DOJ officials refuse to use the term criminal. Individuals who break the law and are convicted for their crimes are no longer criminals. Rather, they’re “justice-involved individuals.” I’m serious. This is not a joke. The first time I read this I thought maybe I’d accidentally stumbled upon an Onion article. But it’s true. The administration is now so concerned with the plight of criminals that it refuses even to call them by that name. Someone call George Orwell. He would love this.
So we have leaders who denigrate and second-guess our police officers while at the same time inventing laughable euphemisms for the people we should actually be concerned about. Truly the world is upside-down.
But my message to you today is that not everyone in Washington and other places has been snookered by this destructive narrative. In fact, polls indicate that the American people reject it overwhelmingly. A poll last month found that 76 percent of Americans have a “great deal” of respect for police in their area, up 12 points from last year. That is the highest level of respect the poll has found since 1967. So the American people—the people who are interacting with police officers on a day-to-day basis and who are relying on officers to keep them safe—have tremendous respect for law enforcement. And their support has only increased over the last 12 months.
I can tell you as well that many of my Senate colleagues—the vast majority in fact—agree with the American people on this. Support for law enforcement runs broad and deep among my colleagues. This year, just as it has the past several years, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution designating a week in May as National Police Week and honoring those law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty over the last twelve months. More than half the Senate, including myself, joined as cosponsors of the resolution.
I’ve been working hard this Congress to support law enforcement and to counter the anti-police narrative we see so frequently in the media.
In fact, I wrote recently to each of the police chiefs in the state to describe what I’ve been doing and how these efforts will help Utah law enforcement. I’m sure you’ve all read and re-read—and re-re-read—the letter many times, so I won’t repeat it here. But let me give just a few toplines for those who haven’t had a chance yet to study it in earnest.
One initiative I’m particularly excited about, and which I think will make a big difference here in Utah, is Rapid DNA. As you all know, DNA technology has made tremendous strides in recent years. Creating a DNA profile from a cheek swab or other sample used to be a cumbersome, time-consuming process that required significant involvement by a lab technician. Recent advances, however, have streamlined the process so that many samples can now be analyzed by fully automated Rapid DNA devices in less than two hours. These devices, which can be placed in booking stations, can enable an officer to know almost immediately whether an individual in custody is wanted for an outstanding crime or has a connection to evidence from a crime scene. This is exciting technology.
Unfortunately, federal law has not kept pace with these technological advances. Federal law still requires all DNA profiles uploaded to the FBI’s CODIS database to be processed at an accredited crime lab. This requirement may have made sense back when even simple DNA analysis required extensive direct involvement by a lab technician, but it no longer makes sense today.
So I introduced the bipartisan Rapid DNA Act to authorize trained law enforcement officials to upload DNA profiles generated by Rapid DNA devices to CODIS and to perform database comparisons. The FBI has said that the authority in my bill would “change the world in a very, very exciting way [by enabling law enforcement] to know instantly—or near instantly—whether [a] person is the [criminal] who’s been on the loose in a particular community before they’re released on bail and get away, or to clear somebody, to show that they’re not the [criminal].” The bill has already passed the Senate. I’m working with my House colleagues to get it through the House so it can become law.
Another bill that I firmly believe will make a meaningful difference for you and your officers is the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Reauthorization Act. This bill renews for another five years a federal grant program that provides $25 million in matching funds for state and local law enforcement to purchase bulletproof vests for officers. These vests save many lives each year. But as you know, they’re also quite costly. I was glad to be part of the effort to renew this important grant program to protect you and your officers from harm.
Two more bills I’d like to briefly mention. First is a bill I cosponsored to authorize grants to state and local law enforcement for training to counter active shooter threats and acts of terrorism. Recent tragedies in Orlando, San Bernardino, and other cities have highlighted the importance of training officers to respond to active shooter situations. President Obama signed the bill into law this summer.
Second is the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act, which I negotiated with my House and Senate counterparts and which is also now law. This bill was the first effort at the national level to address the prescription drug crisis in a comprehensive manner. It creates or improves a number of crucial programs to fight prescription drug abuse, including programs to provide medication-assisted treatment for offenders with substance abuse problems. It also provides funding for naloxone, a drug used to counteract opioid overdoses. The authority in the bill will help you in your efforts to fight prescription drug abuse and to keep young people from becoming addicted to prescription drugs.
It’s time now for me to close, but before I do, I’d like to emphasize again my strong support for you and for the important work you do. You labor every day to keep our homes and communities safe from harm. You are the front lines in the fight against crime. You work to keep drugs off our streets and guns out of the hands of criminals.
I reject emphatically the false and pernicious narrative we see peddled in the media that police officers are the bad guys. You’re not. You’re the good guys—and gals. You’re the ones we turn to when we face danger or when a criminal—let’s call them what they are—threatens us or our families. You keep the peace. You keep society together. You do more good in one day than any smug Washington bureaucrat can hope to do in a year, or a decade. You’re not the bad guys. You’re heroes. And it’s time we paid you the respect you’re due.
Thank you.
------------------
Hatch: Obama's defense bill veto an attack on religious liberty
By Joel Gehrke
Nov 1, 2016
President Obama's reported plan to veto the defense spending legislation constitutes a "deeply disturbing" attack on religious liberty, according to a top Republican.
"It is deeply disturbing that President Obama would threaten a veto over what had, until now, been settled law on religious liberty," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday.
The National Defense Authorization Act is one of the few true must-pass pieces of legislation that Congress sends to the White House each year, making it a high-stakes theater for conflict between Republicans and Democrats. The outcome will be dictated, in part, by which side wins the messaging war over language that Democrats say would authorize defense contractors to discriminate against LGBT people, while Republicans say they are simply allowing religious groups to follow their beliefs.
"Just because a Catholic charity, for example, decides to do work for the federal government should not mean the charity must begin hiring individuals who do not share the charity's religious mission," Hatch said.
The issue arose after President Obama issued an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. "[T]his is a civil rights victory consistent with our founding principles," Labor Secretary Tom Perez wrote in April. "The obligation not to discriminate covers every type of new and modified federal contract — from companies that build our highways and manage our IT infrastructure to those that run our cafeterias, produce our military uniforms and stock our supply closets."
The breadth of the order alarmed religious groups that work with the government, such as military chaplains.
"Under [the executive order], the Muslim chaplain would be forced to use a vendor who disregards Islamic teaching on marriage, while the Catholic chaplain seeking ecclesiastical supplies must purchase from a vendor who ignores the church's doctrine on sexuality," The First Liberty Institute's Mike Berry wrote in May. "What many may not realize is that all military chaplains are required to have the backing of an endorsing body. Any chaplain who runs afoul of the tenets and teachings of their endorser is likely to forfeit their endorsement, meaning they can no longer serve as a chaplain."
In response, Rep. Steve Russell, R-Okla., authored an amendment to the defense bill stating that religious groups can qualify for exemptions to anti-discrimination laws that have already been provided by Congress. "You would have thought I killed somebody's mother," he said on the House floor.
Gay rights groups accused him of using the defense bill to win a sweeping policy victory. "This provision is terrible policy created by an even worse process — it was adopted in the dark of night despite bipartisan opposition and never having had a hearing," the Human Rights Campaign's David Stacy said. "This has no place in the annual defense bill."
Hatch's statement makes clear that the Russell amendment has a powerful supporter in the Senate, which did not include such a provision in its own version of the defense bill. House and Senate negotiators are currently working to resolve the differences between the two versions before voting on a final package to send to the president.
"These protections have been the law of the land for decades and ensure that religiously affiliated organizations are not forced to surrender their religious identity when they enter into agreements with the federal government," Hatch said Tuesday.
Hatch Statement on President Obama’s Plan to Veto NDAA in Opposition to Religious Liberty
SALT LAKE CITY—Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, the senior member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and author of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act reacted today to reports that President Obama is planning to veto the National Defense Authorization Act of 2017 over a provision protecting the religious liberty of federal contractors:
“I’m deeply troubled by reports that President Obama is threatening to veto the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) because he opposes a provision protecting the religious liberty of federal contractors. These protections have been the law of the land for decades and ensure that religiously affiliated organizations are not forced to surrender their religious identity when they enter into agreements with the federal government. Just because a Catholic charity, for example, decides to do work for the federal government should not mean the charity must begin hiring individuals who do not share the charity’s religious mission. It is deeply disturbing that President Obama would threaten a veto over what had, until now, been settled law on religious liberty.”
Background
