John E

Name: John Carlsen (D-IN) Media/Outlet: Meet the Press (NBC) Topic: Immigration and Border Security I believe that any long-term solution to immigration and border security has to include protection for the DREAMERs ... those brought to this country as minors. But permanent residency does not equal citizenship. I would be very cautious in providing a path to citizenship wholesale. But I would not rule it out for everyone in their situation. We need a careful and comprehensive plan for their status. In the long-term, I would not rule out reforms to immigration laws for a greater emphasis on "merit-based" immigration. But looking to the long-term does not mean we should neglect the here and now. We need improved border security and to hold criminals accountable. Members of both parties support the El Chapo Act, for instance. The Senate needs to take this up as soon as possible. And some investment in better technology to protect the border, strengthen fencing, extending the border wall, hiring more ICE personnel, more immigration courts and "accommodations" for those who cross over illegally are vitally important. One thing I cannot support is a blanket ban on immigration from any specific country. Of course we need stringent vetting, and that would apply more in some cases than others. We are right to more carefully examine people coming from a country like Afghanistan than from Japan. But a blanket ban? I just see that as nativist tub-thumping. I call on the leadership of both parties: from the President to the Congressional Leaders, to come together and advance a security package right now, while discussing longer-term solutions to fix our shaky border and immigration situation. In other words, stop demanding something that is a red line for the other side.

Senator Carlsen Reaches Across the Divide to Advocate for the Unborn Tax Credit Provision Virginia Beach, VA: Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) has raised the occasional eyebrow in Washington with his independent-minded words and deeds. Continuing his desire to reach out to conservative Christians, who are numerous in his State of Indiana, Carlsen appeared on Pat Robertson's The 700 Club, a long-running TV program that is viewed predominately by evangelical, socially-conservative Christians. His interview is summarized as follows: ----------------------------- * Abortion is a divisive question with millions of Americans holding strong, sometimes fierce, convictions on the practice * I have tried to find ways to give expectant mothers support so that abortion will not seem like the only option for, to give an example, economic anxieties *That is why I joined with my friend and colleague Andrew Clarke to introduce the tax credit for unborn children act, which, thanks to my efforts, was incorporated into the bipartisan child care and protection act just passed by the Senate. I am grateful to Rev. Franklin Graham for his support of my efforts, and to Majority Leader Everhardt for his help *However, 25 Senators voted against the childcare bill including the unborn tax credit, and every single negative vote came from Republicans, including the Senate Minority Leader who says he is "pro-life." *Even more astounding to me is that Senators Atkins and Kelly, who tried to take over the Senate Republican caucus, actually voted against my amendment! Goodness, it is well and good for Kelly to parade her religiosity in the media, but in an issue of great importance to evangelicals and Catholics alike, she voted against life! *Again, I know abortion is a divisive issue. Certainly, I cannot claim to speak for most of my party in how to approach this issue. But at least my Democratic colleagues will stand up and openly disagree with me. They do not say they are pro-life and then vote against a pro-life measure! *My task today is to encourage your viewers to make their views known on the unborn child tax credit and lobby the House of Representatives to pass it along with the Bipartisan Child Care Act. House Republicans have a responsibility to their constituents to pass the bill. ---------------------------- Carlsen will continue working to advance bi-partisan solutions and will continue his outreach to groups that are not ordinarily likely to support Democrats.

Name: Sen. John Carlsen Media/Outlet: The 700 Club with Pat Robertson Reason: Unborn Child Tax Credit * Abortion is a divisive question with millions of Americans holding strong, sometimes fierce, convictions on the practice * I have tried to find ways to give expectant mothers support so that abortion will not seem like the only option for, to give an example, economic anxieties *That is why I joined with my friend and colleague Andrew Clarke to introduce the tax credit for unborn children act, which, thanks to my efforts, was incorporated into the bipartisan child care and protection act just passed by the Senate. I am grateful to Rev. Franklin Graham for his support of my efforts, and to Majority Leader Everhardt for his help *However, 25 Senators voted against the childcare bill including the unborn tax credit, and every single negative vote came from Republicans, including the Senate Minority Leader who says he is "pro-life." *Even more astounding to me is that Senators Atkins and Kelly, who tried to take over the Senate Republican caucus, actually voted against my amendment! Goodness, it is well and good for Kelly to parade her religiosity in the media, but in an issue of great importance to evangelicals and Catholics alike, she voted against life! *Again, I know abortion is a divisive issue. Certainly, I cannot claim to speak for most of my party in how to approach this issue. But at least my Democratic colleagues will stand up and openly disagree with me. They do not say they are pro-life and then vote against a pro-life measure! *My task today is to encourage your viewers to make their views known on the unborn child tax credit and lobby the House of Representatives to pass it along with the Bipartisan Child Care Act. House Republicans have a responsibility to their constituents to pass the bill.

Senator Carlsen Advocates for Federal Recognition of the Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana Washington, DC: Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) is standing with the Miami Tribe of Indiana as it continues to seek federal recognition. He raised the issue during Morning Business on the Senate floor: --------------------------- Madam President, I rise to speak on behalf of people who suffered an historic injustice, specifically, the Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana. In 1846, some of the Miami people were forcibly removed from Indiana and relocated west of the Mississippi River. A large number eventually settled in Oklahoma, thereby splitting the Miami people in two. The Federal Government has recognized the tribal government of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma since 1846. The Indiana Miami were recognized in a treaty with the Federal Government as a tribal government in 1854. However, the government terminated its recognition in 1897. On September 30, 1937, the Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana was established as a 501(c)(3) non-profit charitable organization in Indiana. Their tribal government and organization are independent of the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, and yet they do not have federal recognition. The tribe has been working since 1897 to regain this recognition. In 1980 the legislature of the State of Indiana voted to support these efforts. And members of both parties in Congress from Indiana have supported this cause for decades. It is long past time to restore that which was wrongfully taken from the Miami Nation of Indians of the State of Indiana: federal recognition. I commend my colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Iyal, for co-sponsoring my bill that would allow for the Indiana branch of the Miami nation to once again apply for federal recognition. And I encourage others in this chamber to do likewise. I yield the floor. ----------------------- Carlson has introduced a bill that would allow the Miami people of Indiana to reapply for federal recognition.

Senator Carlsen Will Not Support the Nationwide Right to Unionize Act Washington, DC: In remarks delivered on the floor of the Senate, Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) has come out in opposition to the Nationwide Right To Unionize Act, not because he is anti-union, but because he believes this is a matter best left to the states, and thus he respects democratic decision making: -------------- Madam President, At this time, there are 27 states with Right to Work laws, including my own State of Indiana. 23 states, including the most populous state, California, do not have Right to Work laws. This shows me that there is nowhere near a national consensus on imposing this proposed law on every state. And I would say the same if the proposal before us were a National Right to Work law. The status quo is not perfect, I would be the first to admit it. But the cause of union employment, however important, does not rise to a level that justifies overturning the laws of a majority of our states. Therefore I cannot support this bill. I yield. -------------- The Senator gladly supports other measures to support American workers. For example, he is favorably inclined to support the Apprenticeship and Job Training Act offered by Senator James of Washington. And Senator Carlsen has already ensured that American workers are protected against government support for outsourcing.

Carlsen Hails Passage of the Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act Washington, DC: Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) is applauding the unanimous passage by both House and Senate of the Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act. This bill contains job training measures for workers displaced by automation, along with a provision authored by Senator Carlsen to end the corporate practice of outsourcing. "Joseph Schumpeter described capitalism as 'creative destruction.' I would say the state exists to alleviate the consequences of economic change. That is why I am so pleased that the Senate and House have unanimously passed the Investing in Tomorrow's Workforce Act, which aims to train workers for the kinds of jobs that are opening up by economic change. Instead of trying to return to the past, and also inaccurately blaming free trade for most job losses, this bill looks to future opportunities. Of course, while I support free trade, I also oppose corporate outsourcing and am thrilled that my amendment withdrawing government support for that practice was incorporated into the bill. If corporations want to outsource, that's on them. The Government does not need to be enabling or subsidizing outsourcing. I am looking forward to other ways that the Congress can pass pro-worker measures."

Carlsen Disappointed At Failure To Pass Compromise Minimum Wage Bill Washington, DC: Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) is disappointed that the minimum wage bill before the Senate has been pulled by the Senate Majority Leader, because a compromise Amendment authored by Senator Cliff Fleming (R-AL) and seconded by Senator Carlsen appeared to be heading for passage. The Fleming-Carlsen Amendment would have increased the hourly minimum wage to $11, which represents a 50% increase in the current minimum wage of $7.25. The Amendment would also have insituted e-verify, to ensure that only American citizens or legally resident aliens would be hired to work. "Well, look, democracy is messy. But I am disappointed. To have the lion's share of Republicans going along with a 50% increase in the minimum wage was a victory for working Americans as far as I am concerned. Sure, the activists who came up with a $15 figure, seemingly out of thin air, don't like it, and neither do some folks who get paid for yelling on cable TV. But it was real progress. But now we are back to square one. I also strongly support the e-verify provision as a way to protect American and other legal workers. Illegal immigration does create problems. Unfortunately, some Republicans have so poisoned the atmosphere with disgusting comments about our President being an "anchor baby" whose mother "dropped her" here, that it is now extremely difficult to discuss immigration and border security rationally. So here we are again, without any minimum wage increase and without any further protections for legal workers in this country. I really implore both parties to consider that neither one of us dominates the government, and that we need each other to pass beneficial measures for the American people. As for me, I am open to sensible proposals to raise the minimum wage if any come down the pike."

Carlsen Steps Down as President Pro-Tem of Senate, Refocuses His Priorities Washington, DC: I continue to be grateful for the opportunity to serve as Senate PPT, but I noticed that the position made it harder for me to emphasize what I want to emphasize as a Senator. The clerical time commitments were substantial, and, as a member of the leadership, I would necessarily be constrained in what I could advocate. In that regard, I am very pleased that my colleague Hannah James will serve as President-Pro-Tem. She is organized and energetic and will do our party and country proud. As a Senator from Indiana, I have set out some priorities on budgetary, economic and social questions. Regarding the budget, when Barack Obama was elected in 2008, the economy was in a free fall. Through a variety of creative programs and heavy extra spending, under Obama the economy was saved (think General Motors). But deficits skyrocketed and the national debt increased substantially, on top of the massive debt increase we experienced under the Bush Presidency resulting from a "war of choice" in Iraq and unfunded tax cuts. Because growth did eventually return to the economy, and because spending was gradually reigned in after 2010, the annual deficit has been declining rapidly. I want that progress to continue. That is why I submitted a Balanced Budget Amendment that addresses all non-mandatory spending and taxes. All of this means that I will scrutinize any proposals that have to the potential to increase the deficit, including proposals that I support in principle, such as increasing financial support for children. Very few people are opposed to doing more for families with children. But I continue to believe that any new spending or tax breaks need to be paid for by cutting other spending, by increasing revenue, or through a combination of measures. I do not like being the guy who says "no," to helping families. But heedlessly running up deficits and the debt does not help families, either. And, like families have to do all the time, the government needs to live within its means and set priorities for spending. Still, I am confident that members of Congress can come together and find a way forward. Further, while our economy has been recovering from its disastrous condition in 2008, there is still some softness in the job market. No one opposes helping working Americans with higher wages. And it is true that the minimum wage needs to be increased. But, again, any wage increase needs to take the underlying job market into account. That is why I have consistently supported a moderate minimum wage increase to $10 per hour, but with automatic indexing for inflation included. The last thing anyone should want is to cause people to lose their jobs, which is a risk if wage rates are pushed unrealistically high. I will continue to consider the interests of employees and employers in such matters. On what are called "social issues," I have tried to balance diverse constituencies. On abortion, I am saddened that it is so prevalent, hundreds of thousands of them each year. But I also believe that offering more support to expectant mothers and their unborn children is more effective at reducing the number of abortions than attempting to ban the practice, which is impossible anyway because of Supreme Court precedents. I also continue to hope that people who identify as "pro-choice" and "pro-life" can find ways to come together to reduce the perceived need for abortions. On another social issue, the Supreme Court has legalized same-sex marriage across the land. We are still adjusting to this new reality. In my view, anyone in a public office, including county clerks, cannot lawfully refuse to issue same-sex marriage licenses. The law is the law. However, while same-sex marriages must be recognized, not everyone should be compelled to approve of them. To me, this means allowing the providers of wedding related services, such as florists, bakers and photographers, to refuse the provision of such services for wedding ceremonies that they believe violate their conscience. The right of conscience is a value that I believe our country must uphold as one of her highest values.

U.S. Senator from Indiana Senate President Pro-Tem John Carlsen "I'm happy to see you all here, for we meet at a time of great urgency. In the last election, several members of our party, including yours truly, explored running for President. Some went further and competed in the primaries. And at the end of the day, our great nominee, Xiomara de la Cruz, led our party to victory. While there were differences between the various candidates, we all agreed that we want progress for the American people: higher wages; protection of civil rights; preserving our entitlements; making sure the wealthy pay their appropriate share. And, at the heart of our effort was one great cause: to confirm a Justice of the Supreme Court. You know what happened. You know that Senate Republicans refused to grant a hearing to a well-qualified black Judge, Paul Watford, nominated by then-President Obama. In a truly unprecedented defiance of long-standing tradition, going back through Presidents Reagan, Johnson, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt, Hoover, and Taft, then Senate Leader Mitch McConnell did a wonderful impression of the late Leonid Brezhnev saying "NYET!" to democratic reforms. No, he insisted, backed up robotically by his Senate followers, action would only be taken after the Presidential election. Well, a funny thing happened on the way to 2017. De la Cruz won the Presidential election! It does not take a genius to realize that the Presidential election was in part a referendum on the Supreme Court. And, to put it bluntly, we won, and they lost. Not only did Xiomara win the Presidency, but the American people punished Republican obstructionism by giving our party a large gain and the Senate majority. Now, finally, we could make progress. And in her wisdom, our President nominated Paul Watford again. This well-qualified judge would finally get the respect he deserved. And the American people would finally get the Justice whose nomination they overwhelmingly support ... over 60% of the public! Well, that is what should have happened. Instead, Senate Republicans, from their new but not improved leader, Cliff Fleming, launched a campaign of vilification against Watford. They even tried to use his race against him, and yelled about affirmative action like Abe Simpson yelling at a cloud. They smeared him as an ideologue, a judicial policy maker, someone who wants to kill cops and coddle illegal aliens. All of these accusations were dealt a severe fact-check by our amazing Vice President, Doug Murphy. But never mind. Like the sheep in Orwell's novel Animal Farm, the GOP Senate caucus just kept bleating the same things over and over again: "extremist." "embraces cop killers and illegal aliens." "legislate from bench." It is distasteful, but not really that surprising. These are the same Republicans who have repeatedly smeared our outstanding Majority Leader, Alex Fakhouri, because of his faith. They have linked him to terrorism because he is Muslim. You know, I have had plenty of disagreements with President George W. Bush, but at least he tried to set an inclusive tone, saying over and over again that Islam itself means "peace" and the actions of terrorists must never be used to scapegoat a whole group. My God, can you imagine what this current crop of Republicans would have done if they had gotten in last year? What would they have done to the millions of good, honest Americans of the Muslim faith, some of whom I served with in the Army fighting for our country? The Republicans just seem to be overflowing with hate. And not just against those outside of their camp, but within. You are an engaged group of folks. You know what's going on in the news. There is a civil war erupting in the Republican Party. All against all. Fighting on twitter and in the media. Party and caucus leaders being challenged and some overthrown. They are desperately concerned with power and prestige and "winning" at all costs, even at their own cost. When I behold the Republican Party today, well, I hope you will allow me to quote scripture, specifically the first chapter of Romans: "filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness." These are the stakes, my friends. We are Democrats. We believe in progress. We do not always agree, but we keep our eye on the prize, which is a better life for our people: more jobs; higher wages; cleaner air; protection of all people regardless of color or creed; economic fairness; a functioning judiciary. Steady progress for all. They are Republicans. I don't need to tell you what they are about, for you have witnessed it. You have heard the effluent of hate spewing from their mouths. You have observed their strife and jealousy and selfishness. I say to you, we must all redouble our efforts to preserve this Republic and her people. As Barack Obama said years ago, "Si, se puede. YES, WE CAN!"

Senator Carlsen Addresses Munich Security Conference Munich, Germany: Senator John Carlsen (D-IN) was one of several U.S. Senators who traveled to Munich to participate in the Munich Security Conference. Here is a transcript of his remarks: "It is an honor to address you today. We are gathered together as people who share similar values and common interests. We are, by and large, democratic republics or constitutional monarchies. For years the United States has worked with the countries of NATO and the EU, and other friends, for our mutual security and prosperity. As someone from the United States, I am especially glad to be here, because I am reminded that while my country is considered the pre-eminent superpower (or what one of our friends from France once called us, a "hyperpower."), America is far stronger with our friends and allies than we would be without you. As an American, I have to tell you how much it meant to me, and to so many of my fellow countrymen, when NATO, for the only time in its history, activated Article 5 because America was attacked on 9/11. In retrospect, I wish we had listened more closely to the concerns of some of our allies, such as France and Germany, as we prepared for war with Iraq. Sometimes friends have to tell each other hard truths, and for us the hard truth was that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a terrible risk, and we were not willing to hear that back in 2002 and 2003. The numbers of civilian dead, the masses of refugees, the rise of ISIS, the decimation of the ancient Christian community in Iraq, were all consequences of our decisions in 2002 and 2003. It is fair to say that the neo-conservative project of nation-building and exporting democracy by force has attempted too much, and has therefore failed to deliver on its promises. Cooperation between allies is especially important to handle our current challenges. For example, how will NATO and the EU address Russia and Ukraine? Russia has de facto annexed swathes of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. The response from the United States and her allies was relatively muted. But surely there is a greater sense of urgency among our friends in Poland, the Baltic States, and possibly other countries bordering Russia? Ukraine's territorial integrity has already been compromised. How can we work together to prevent further encroachments on Ukranian land, or pressure against other vulnerable countries in Eastern Europe? Can we speak with a unified voice and agree to collective action? And, is it still possible to have a cooperative relationship with Russia in light of these circumstances? You will agree that we are challenged with events that do not occur on this continent. Consider the Middle East. That region has been a flashpoint for decades. Right now there is a devastating civil war in Syria which potentially may de-stablize its neighbors and, as you are all too aware, has caused an acute refugee crisis. And, as always, there is the status of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Is the status quo sustainable over the long term? How will the question of Palestinian "refugees" (the overwhelming majority of whom were born in their current locations I must point out) be resolved? Or the question of Palestinian self-government? I will say that the entire burden does not rest on Israel. Neighboring Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan (which was envisioned as "the Palestinian state") have a responsibility as well. Israel is so often told that it must make sacrifices for peace. And in the past it has done so. But to truly settle the status of Palestinians will require sacrifice and flexibility from her neighbors. And so what can the countries of NATO and the European Union do diplomatically and economically to facilitate a settlement that is fair to all sides? I suppose it is true for any country that there is always a tension between going it alone and cooperating with others. That is especially a difficulty for a country such as mine, because we are not constrained to the extent that members of the European Union are constrained. Theoretically, we could "go it alone" in foreign policy and economic policy. And I mention economic policy because in my own country there is a rising tendency towards protectionism. Loud voices are demanding that we either renegotiate or abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement. Needless to say, this is not a positive signal to the United States reaching further free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or, my own preference, lowering trade barriers between the United States and the European Union. And yet anyone with the slightest understanding knows that the greater the trading area, the more choices, the more competition, and the more innovation occurs. And to be sure, there are differences in economic development between trading partners that should be accounted for. But the solution is not to raise further barriers to trade. Concerning NAFTA, it is true that since 1994 there have been job losses in some sectors of the economy. But what critics fail to understand is that correlation is not causation. Far more jobs disappear because of automation and other advances in productivity. And so the solution is job retraining, other assistance for displaced workers, and changes in vocational education. There is another aspect to free trade agreements other than pure economics. There is an unavoidable political aspect as well. I briefly mentioned the Transpacific Trade Act earlier in my remarks. I will speak plainly: we are concerned with mainland China's increasing influence, which is backed by a rapid military expansion and a growing threat to our friends on the Island of Taiwan. We are sadly witnessing the slow death of freedom in Hong Kong as mainland China continues to deepen its control over that city state. Many countries in East Asia and the Pacific have mounting concerns, such as Taiwan, and Japan, and India, Australia, and Vietnam. The Transpacific Trade Agreement would serve to draw the United States and these countries closer together economically and politically. If mainland China wants that kind of access and influence, we and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region would encourage a more cooperative approach from that nation. As much influence and power as the United States may possess, imagine the potential for a free trade bloc that includes 40% of the world's entire economy? And, to our friends in Europe, imagine what the United States and the European Union can achieve with greater economic, political and military cooperation? So many countries have united previously to achieve great aims, such as defeating Nazism and fascism in World War 2, and peacefully winning the Cold War. How appropriate that we meet here in Germany, cruelly divided in the Cold War, but brought back together at its end? Back in the 1990s, Madeline Albright called America "the indispensable nation." I would say, if we are so, we also have indispensable partners. I hope we will face the challenges of this world, together. Thank you."

Senator Carlsen Addresses Munich Security Conference Munich, Germany: "It is an honor to address you today. We are gathered together as people who share similar values and common interests. We are, by and large, democratic republics or constitutional monarchies. For years the United States has worked with the countries of NATO and the EU, and other friends, for our mutual security and prosperity. As someone from the United States, I am especially glad to be here, because I am reminded that while my country is considered the pre-eminent superpower (or what one of our friends from France once called us, a "hyperpower."), America is far stronger with our friends and allies than we would be without you. As an American, I have to tell you how much it meant to me, and to so many of my fellow countrymen, when NATO, for the only time in its history, activated Article 5 because America was attacked on 9/11. In retrospect, I wish we had listened more closely to the concerns of some of our allies, such as France and Germany, as we prepared for war with Iraq. Sometimes friends have to tell each other hard truths, and for us the hard truth was that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a terrible risk, and we were not willing to hear that back in 2002 and 2003. The numbers of civilian dead, the masses of refugees, the rise of ISIS, the decimation of the ancient Christian community in Iraq, were all consequences of our decisions in 2002 and 2003. It is fair to say that the neo-conservative project of nation-building and exporting democracy by force has attempted too much, and has therefore failed to deliver on its promises. Cooperation between allies is especially important to handle our current challenges. For example, how will NATO and the EU address Russia and Ukraine? Russia has de facto annexed swathes of eastern Ukraine and the Crimea. The response from the United States and her allies was relatively muted. But surely there is a greater sense of urgency among our friends in Poland, the Baltic States, and possibly other countries bordering Russia? Ukraine's territorial integrity has already been compromised. How can we work together to prevent further encroachments on Ukranian land, or pressure against other vulnerable countries in Eastern Europe? Can we speak with a unified voice and agree to collective action? And, is it still possible to have a cooperative relationship with Russia in light of these circumstances? You will agree that we are challenged with events that do not occur on this continent. Consider the Middle East. That region has been a flashpoint for decades. Right now there is a devastating civil war in Syria which potentially may de-stablize its neighbors and, as you are all too aware, has caused an acute refugee crisis. And, as always, there is the status of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. Is the status quo sustainable over the long term? How will the question of Palestinian "refugees" (the overwhelming majority of whom were born in their current locations I must point out) be resolved? Or the question of Palestinian self-government? I will say that the entire burden does not rest on Israel. Neighboring Arab countries such as Egypt and Jordan (which was envisioned as "the Palestinian state") have a responsibility as well. Israel is so often told that it must make sacrifices for peace. And in the past it has done so. But to truly settle the status of Palestinians will require sacrifice and flexibility from her neighbors. And so what can the countries of NATO and the European Union do diplomatically and economically to facilitate a settlement that is fair to all sides? I suppose it is true for any country that there is always a tension between going it alone and cooperating with others. That is especially a difficulty for a country such as mine, because we are not constrained to the extent that members of the European Union are constrained. Theoretically, we could "go it alone" in foreign policy and economic policy. And I mention economic policy because in my own country there is a rising tendency towards protectionism. Loud voices are demanding that we either renegotiate or abandon the North American Free Trade Agreement. Needless to say, this is not a positive signal to the United States reaching further free trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or, my own preference, lowering trade barriers between the United States and the European Union. And yet anyone with the slightest understanding knows that the greater the trading area, the more choices, the more competition, and the more innovation occurs. And to be sure, there are differences in economic development between trading partners that should be accounted for. But the solution is not to raise further barriers to trade. Concerning NAFTA, it is true that since 1994 there have been job losses in some sectors of the economy. But what critics fail to understand is that correlation is not causation. Far more jobs disappear because of automation and other advances in productivity. And so the solution is job retraining, other assistance for displaced workers, and changes in vocational education. There is another aspect to free trade agreements other than pure economics. There is an unavoidable political aspect as well. I briefly mentioned the Transpacific Trade Act earlier in my remarks. I will speak plainly: we are concerned with mainland China's increasing influence, which is backed by a rapid military expansion and a growing threat to our friends on the Island of Taiwan. We are sadly witnessing the slow death of freedom in Hong Kong as mainland China continues to deepen its control over that city state. Many countries in East Asia and the Pacific have mounting concerns, such as Taiwan, and Japan, and India, Australia, and Vietnam. The Transpacific Trade Agreement would serve to draw the United States and these countries closer together economically and politically. If mainland China wants that kind of access and influence, we and our allies in the Asia-Pacific region would encourage a more cooperative approach from that nation. As much influence and power as the United States may possess, imagine the potential for a free trade bloc that includes 40% of the world's entire economy? And, to our friends in Europe, imagine what the United States and the European Union can achieve with greater economic, political and military cooperation? So many countries have united previously to achieve great aims, such as defeating Nazism and fascism in World War 2, and peacefully winning the Cold War. How appropriate that we meet here in Germany, cruelly divided in the Cold War, but brought back together at its end? Back in the 1990s, Madeline Albright called America "the indispensable nation." I would say, if we are so, we also have indispensable partners. I hope we will face the challenges of this world, together. Thank you."

You hold the Key to our success. Welcome!

This real life Iowa resident welcomes you!

Carlsen Elected President Pro-Tem of the Senate Washington, DC: Senator John Carlsen of Indiana has been unanimously elected President Pro-Tem of the Senate by his Democratic colleagues. Carlsen, known as a moderate in his party, wants to act as a "unifying" figure in his role. "This is a very great honor, and I am thankful to my colleagues for their entrusting me with this responsibility. The Democratic Party has a wide spectrum of opinion, but we all believe in progress. Other than the clerical aspects of the position, which I will strive to fulfill well, I see my task as two-fold: first, to advocate a moderate and pragmatic course of action with my fellow Democrats on issues like the minimum wage and reducing the annual deficit. I will also advocate for practical ways to support pregnant women so that they will not feel like their only alternative is abortion. Americans differ on whether it is better or worse to have legal abortion and to what extent, but I am sure that most Americans do not believe it is an ideal choice, and they would want society to support women in difficult circumstances. And that brings me to the second task, which is to serve as a bridge between the Democratic and Republican Parties. Both parties have to realize that this was a split decision election. While I am of course very pleased that Xiomara de la Cruz was elected President, and that we Democrats now control the Senate, I have to acknowledge that Republicans hold the House of Representatives. We have to strive for common ground. I believe my colleagues in leadership agree. I hope my Republican colleagues agree. So far they are choosing hard-right individuals to lead their party in the Senate and as RNC Chairman. Their Senator from Tennessee is stirring up hatred against Americans of the Muslim faith without any pushback from his party. It's not the best start but maybe things will work out. Both sides need to avoid grandstanding and obstruction."

You're probably not older than I am.

Isn't it time we had a Senator? BUCKLEY

Name: John Carlsen Media: Meet the Press (NBC) Reason: Supreme Court vacancy * With the death of Justice Scalia, ordinarily the Senate would be allowed to consider a potential replacement. * My own preference was for the President and Senate Majority Leader to sit down together and find a list of nominees they could both live with. * Unfortunately, Senator McConnell pre-empted any discussions by issuing a diktat that no nominee will be considered this year, leaving the Supreme Court at eight Justices. * Presidents Taft, Wilson, Hoover, Roosevelt, Johnson and Reagan have all had their nominees considered in a Presidential election year. Weirdly, Republicans have decided that a speech by the Vice President 17 years before he became Vice President is a "binding rule" from the Obama Administration. That, of course, is poppycock. * My recommendation is still that the President and Senate Majority come together to find a way forward.

Welcome aboard, Heusden!

Carlsen for President Platform In 1960, John F. Kennedy described the New Frontier he offered the American people: The New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises, it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook—it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security. It is in that spirit that I offer my program to the American people. It calls upon our citizens to dig deep within themselves to make progress, but the right way: progress that recognizes trade-offs and sometimes sacrifices. I offer the American people progress that is built upon the foundations of our national strength: a devotion to something greater than ourselves. When our nation is strengthened, all Americans are strengthened. Foreign and Defense Policy Maintain our armed presence in Iraq and Afghanistan ("as small as possible, as large as necessary") Conduct an audit of U.S. military bases around the world to prioritize which ones to keep and which ones to close Move more uniformed personnel from “desk jobs” to front line positions Uphold the agreement with Russia regarding Syria Return to an annual review of China’s MFN trading status Pursue the Trans-Pacific Partnership with other Asian and Pacific nations Lower trade barriers for goods and services (via a multilateral treaty) with the countries of the European Union Preserve the North American Free Trade Agreement; make internal adjustments as needed Strongly support Israel: move our embassy to Jerusalem. At the same time, convene a summit with Israel, Jordan, Egypt and other allies in the region to resolve the issue of Palestinian refugees and their descendants Continue developing and advancing missile defense systems on the lines of the Iron Dome Immigration and Border Security Enact a Merit-Based Immigration system that increases the number of high-skilled, educated immigrants who can legally move to the USA Enact the DREAM Act Speed up deportation for immigrants who have committed a crime (other than arriving here) or defrauded the government Improve border security through physical (walls, fences, earthworks), virtual (drones, sensors, satellites) and human (more CBP agents) systems Increase immigration courts and detention centers Pass a national e-verify bill Institute biometric visas Require immigrants to be fully proficient in the English language and the history and culture of the United States Economy and Government Reform Require one dollar saved for each dollar spent on new programs or tax cuts Audit every government department to uncover and root out wasteful spending Eliminate the cap on Social Security taxation threshold to save Social Security long-term Allow people born in 1990 or later to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in curated investment accounts of their own choice Change the annual increase in Social Security benefits to the “chained CPI.” Institute a 1% supplemental tax on earnings above the Medicare income threshold to preserve Medicare long-term Make “Medicare Plus” the default option for new enrollees to Medicare. Impose a 2.5% temporary tax surcharge on all income over $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 of married couples to be applied exclusively to deficit reduction. Reduce the allowance for itemized deductions to $20,000 per individual or $40,000 per married couple or family. Reduce “corporate welfare” and “welfare for the well off” Increase the minimum wage to at least $10 per hour over a three-year period, and index the minimum wage to inflation. Energy and Environment Expand infrastructure to support electric and hydrogen cell vehicles Develop a network of high-speed rail based on MAGLEV technology Build pipelines to safely transport energy and create American refining jobs Invest money from fossil fuel development into renewable energy research Expand nuclear power while researching and developing min-reactors, and fusion and thorium nuclear reactors Continue support for solar, wind, and hydroelectric energy Develop tidal and geothermal energy generation Preserve, protect and expand America’s national park system Develop public-private partnerships in support of these goals Conduct a nationwide review of water infrastructure to identify and then resolve issues with clean drinking water as in Flint, Michigan. Education Encourage public and charter school choice Expand Pell Grants Reform the student loan program to reduce the burden on student borrowers Grant tax incentives to employers to help reduce employees’ student debt Expand apprenticeship programs for gainful employment Expand the teaching of Spanish as America’s second language Expand STEM education Develop public-private partnerships in support of these goals Healthcare Lower the cost of healthcare by legalizing interstate insurance sales. Work with the states to control medical malpractice costs Establish a new tier of coverage to expand choice and coverage Incentivize states to expand Medicaid coverage for low-income households Expand telehealth programs for all Americans, especially those in rural areas Expand federal funding for treating drug addiction, especially opioid addiction Allow the federal government to negotiate down prices for Medicare Part D Law and Justice Grants for community policing initiatives Require the use of body cameras for police officers Improve training in de-escalation and non-lethal tactics Review qualified immunity Mandatory minimum sentences for criminals who target police officers for violence Maintain the federal death penalty while increasing funding of legal assistance in capital cases Reproductive Health Support the Constitutional right to an abortion as set out in Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood Increase access to contraception Continue federal funding for Planned Parenthood Maintain the Hyde Amendment except in cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother Invest in women’s health across the board Expand social, educational and employment opportunities for pregnant mothers and parents of newborns to establish a true pro-choice regime by offering abortion alternatives Streamline the process of adoption for families wanting to adopt children Values of Freedom, Diversity and Equity Strengthen the Voting Rights Act Defend the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell vs. Hodges Pass federal anti-employment discrimination legislation to protect LGBT Americans Recognize the unique contributions of African-Americans to our country Appoint federal judges who show a commitment to the Constitution’s guarantee of privacy and who honor Stare Decisis Uphold the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom and the right to act according to one’s conscience.

Carlsen Announces Run for President Indianapolis, Indiana: Senator John Carlsen is throwing his hat into the ring for the Democratic nomination for President. Carlsen believes that there is room for a candidate who supports a moderate course on economics and social policy, and an active foreign policy that expands US alliances in Europe and the Pacific. "You know, I am kind of boring compared to some other folks running for President. I don't have a quirky nickname, and my views do not easily fit on a bumper sticker. I am just a guy who comes from Middle America who served his country in the Army, and who wants to continue the progress we have seen under President Obama. Given the current political climate, it almost sounds daring to say that I support the President's vision for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I support it because it will put our country at the center of an enormous free trade area comprising 40% of the entire world's economy. The best way to compete with China is to build up an economic and political alliance with the other nations in Asia and Oceania. Lower trade barriers to our goods and services; protection of intellectual property; establishing a new trade equilibrium that will grow our economy and the economy of our friends. At the same time, we must accept that not every country is our friend. I share the growing concern of most Americans about China's increasing power and influence. When a country oppresses whole people groups like the Tibetans; when a country looms over the free people of Taiwan like a dark shadow; when a country manipulates currency and steals our intellectual property; then it it time for a new China policy for the United States of America. And TPP is at the center of this new policy. At the heart of these issues is the attitude by which we Americans face the world. Do we turn away from the world in fear? Do we blame all of our problems on foreign trade, or do we focus on where we have a competitive advantage and look to the future? We cannot recreate the past, as much as nostalgia beckons us. But we can and we will seize the opportunities that economic change brings us. Let us not be ruled by fear, but let us be a people of hope. President Obama gets it, and one reason I am running for President is adapt his policies for the next several years. And so, yes, I look to preserve and strengthen great achievements like the Affordable Care Act. We can both broaden and deepen the ACA to give more options to more people. And I support common-sense reforms to entitlements, such as lifting the earnings cap for the Social Security tax, to finally ensure that the wealthiest among us pay what they should. And, as the President has advocated, we can change the way we calculate growth in benefits to save money. And we must not neglect those who struggle to make ends meet. That is why we must finally raise the minimum wage to $10, with automatic cost of living increases from then on. This will balance the interests of business owners and their employees. We want everyone to have a well-paying job, and we want businesses to thrive. This is the way to achieve these goals. Of course, other challenges remain. Terrible acts of gun violence have plagued our country. It is past time for common-sense gun control. Yes, the ideologues will yell and scream against any changes, but I support mandatory training, licensing, examinations, and insurance as a condition of owning a firearm. The states can handle it the way they handle drivers licenses. Close the loopholes, establish the rules, and we will move to a safer America. The issue of immigration and border security has become ever more acute. Of course we must be compassionate towards those immigrants who were brought here as children or infants. This is the country they know. And so I pledge to you that DACA must and will remain in a Carlsen Presidency. But we also have too many illegals who break the law with seeming impunity. With them, our course must be as follows: first, stop them from coming into our country by securing the border and all ports of entry; and if they do slip in through the cracks, track them down and deport them. In order to preserve a humane immigration policy, we must crack down on those who abuse our generosity and hospitality. And now we come to the question of rights: the Supreme Court has established the right to marry for gays and lesbians. That is the law of the land and anyone in public office must respect and obey the law. There can be no-carve outs for public officials responsible for issuing marriage licenses. But surely we can come together as a people to both honor the law, and people's marriages, and the rights of conscience of private parties who have a different viewpoint. And I would say the same about the transgender controversy we have been hearing about recently. We must find a way to respect the rights of privacy of people who identify as transgender, and those who do not. That may take a lot of work, but nothing worthwhile is easy. In the midst of societal change, let us remember what unites us as Americans, and act accordingly. My friends, I have laid out some of the challenges we face. But you know what? I feel good about them. I feel good about them because we are Americans, and there is nothing we cannot do when we combine our intelligence and ingenuity in a common purpose. I offer to you a campaign with a can-do spirit and an endless optimism about our country and our people. If this is what you are looking for, instead of negativity and scapegoating, then I want you to join this effort. Thank you."

Placeholder

Oh, your character is not a Senator?

I called the seat first FWIW...

Senator John Carlson, Democrat, Indiana Name: John Carlsen Seat: Indiana, Class One Party: Democratic Faction: Blue Dog Coalition Gender: Male (0) Age: 48 (5 points) Sexuality: Straight, married with 2 children (-5 points) Race: White (0) Religion: Mainline Protestant (0) Education: B.A. (History and Political Science), Notre Dame University (5 points) Family History: Upper Class (-5) Career Information: Commissioned Military (10)(highest rank achieved = Captain); Business Executive (20) Political Experience: First Senate term, elected in 2012; Member of the U.S. House of Representatives (3 terms, 9 points) Awards and Extras: Total Points: 39 points John Carlsen was born to Jim and Shirley Carlsen in South Bend, Indiana, on February 4, 1968. Jim owned and ran a chain of restaurants in Indiana and Ohio, while Shirley served as the chain's chief financial officer. Thus, John grew up in privileged circumstances. He played lacrosse in high school (private) and received both his Bachelors (History and Poli Sci) from Notre Dame, graduating in 1990. While Carlsen is a Protestant, he was fine with studying in a "Catholic" atmosphere and having discussions about faith with his Catholic classmates. During his time at Notre Dame, Carlsen belonged to the ROTC (Army) and was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant upon graduation. Carlsen was deployed to South Korea which was uneventful in spite of the menacing presence of North Korea just a few kilometers away. He would later describe the situation in Korea as "surreal." His time in South Korea gave Carlsen the chance to hone his leadership skills, and within a few years he served as a company commander. He returned stateside after four years, and stationed at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. He elected to remain in the Army after his four-year obligation concluded. Everything changed as a result of 9/11. Carlsen, promoted to Major, was deployed to the Middle East and participated in Operation Iraqi Freedom, leading his battalion in the invasion and in the aftermath. While he believed in America's mission there, he became disenchanted with the poorly thought-out strategy of the US and allied occupation forces. He voiced concern to his superiors that the U.S. did not have sufficient forces in Iraq to successfully maintain order after dismantling the entire Iraqi security apparatus, or in Afghanistan to hunt down Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. In 2004, Carlsen was ready to go on the active reserve list. He returned home to Indiana and settled into a pleasant routine of working for his family's business, which also gave him the opportunity to establish valuable connections in community affairs. By then he was also becoming disillusioned with the continuing failure to establish a lasting peace in Iraq, and the lack of success in apprehending (or killing) Osama bin Laden. He felt called to run for higher office. His family connections and those he established personally proved helpful. He surprised some people by declaring as a Democrat, given his strong pro-life convictions, but explained his motivation in seeking "change." He ran as a combat veteran and independent voice, someone not involved in the partisan political battles of the time. He also ran as someone who supported the war but now questioned how it was being run, and even implicitly criticized the invasion of Iraq as it may have distracted America's attention from the conflict in Afghanistan and the continuing hunt for Osama bin Laden. In 2006, a blue wave year, Carlsen was elected to serve Congress in the politically marginal second district of Indiana. He was easily re-elected in 2008 as Barack Obama became the first Democrat to win Indiana since 1964. And while 2010 was a hard year for Democrats, Carlsen's moderate voting record and independent image helped him stave off defeat. In late 2010, Osama bin Laden was finally brought to a rough justice by the men of SEAL Team Six. Carlsen felt like the primary goal of the War on Terror was finally met, and it happened under President Obama. In 2012, he decided to seek election to the U.S. Senate from Indiana. He again ran as a combat veteran and relatively moderate Democrat, although also a proud supporter of President Obama's leadership. Carlsen would have been a decided underdog against long-time and highly respected incumbent Richard Lugar. However, Lugar lost his own primary badly to State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Mourdock ran a poor campaign in general, including making a gaffe on pregnancy resulting from rape. While Carlsen was pro-life, he remained relatively quiet on abortion and allowed the media to focus on Mourdock's trouble with words. In the end, Carlsen won a relatively comfortable victory in the election, running well ahead of Obama who lost the state to Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Like another long-serving Indiana Democrat, Evan Bayh, Carlsen is a moderate Democrat, but more conservative than Bayh on social issues (while being quite cautious not to upset either his liberal base or moderate to conservative crossover voters) while being more progressive on economic issues. He stresses reforms of the political system and is a self-described deficit hawk. Carlsen is married to his college sweetheart, Hannah, and they have two children: Sophie and Will. KEY VOTES: 110th Congress 2007-2009 Democrats: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 AYE 111th Congress 2009-2011 Democrats: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 AYE 112th Congress 2011-2013 Democrats: United States–Colombia Free Trade Agreement: AYE 113th Congress 2013-2015 Both: Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization: AYE Both: Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013: AYE 114th Congress 2015-2017 Both: Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015: AYE