What their studies are showing today, as they showed before we acted in 2004, is that money is going to come back. The Treasury actually will be helped. Jobs will be created in the United States. And a side benefit is $565 billion comes into the banks in the United States to help capitalize the banks. What are we all talking about here? That our banks don't have enough capital. This, without a cost to the taxpayer, brings capital back. But in the wisdom of Joint Tax, they actually say that this bill is going to cost money, that it is going to decrease revenues to the Federal Government, where all the evidence by outside economists as well as all the evidence by history shows otherwise. Look at this. Every year money being repatriated to the United States, pretty consistent down here, below $50 billion was brought back in each year. Guess what. We passed the Invest in USA Act in 2004. Repatriation shot up to $360 billion. Look what happened the next year. It went right back down, and it has been down since.
John Ensign: “What their studies are showing today, as they showed before we acted in 2004, is that money is going to come back. The…”
On the recordFebruary 3, 2009
Said by
John Ensign
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the economic impact of the Invest in USA Act during a floor speech.
Share
More from John Ensign
Mar 17, 2011
I want to talk for a while on the Hutchison amendment which says that, while the health care reform bill President Obama and the majority passed last year is going through the courts, any related provisions would be put on hold until the…
Mar 30, 2011
I rise to speak in reaction to President Obama's speech this week outlining what he believes to be in our Nation's interest in Libya. Last week, while working in Nevada, many of my constituents asked what my thoughts were on the military…
Jan 6, 2011
What would a downgrade from AAA to AA of the United States credit rating do to the interest rates and do to your budget projections?