Jesse Helms

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I believe there are 7\1/2\ minutes set aside for me. Is that correct?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I commend the distinguished Senator from North Carolina on his excellent remarks about a very serious subject. I do not know whether this Senate is going to try to act on this bill or not, but I want him to know that I am honored to be a cosponsor of the bill. Now, did I understand the Senator to say that four-fifths of the American people support the concept that working people should not be forced to associate with or support any organization or class of organization as a condition of getting a job or keeping the job?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, in the first place, raising the minimum wage is a political issue, not an economic issue. In order to adjust the perspective, it should be remembered that the Senator from Massachusetts may be revealing a bit of a forked tongue on this phony political issue. That is why I am supporting the Lott-Bond amendment which honestly and clearly addresses the real issues of this debate. For years, Senator Kennedy served as chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee--prior to his losing his chairmanship in the 1994 elections. To my knowledge the issue of minimum wage increase was never brought up, even once, by Senator Kennedy during the 2 previous years before he lost his chairmanship. But, Mr, President, I recall that in 1995, when the State Department reorganization bill became the pending business in the Senate, there he was, the same Senator from Massachusetts, who was the first to pop his head up and begin as the lead-off filibusterer among the Democrats who had their orders to stymie a bill that would have saved the American taxpayers billions of dollars while clearing a lot of dead wood from the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. And what was the subject of Senator Kennedy's filibuster? He was shouting at the top of his voice about the dire need to raise the minimum wage--a subject, bear in mind that had prompted not a peep out of Chairman Kennedy during those years when he headed the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee. But now, the political issue of raising the minimum wage is before the Senate and, at the outset, it would be unfair to the American people to fail to warn them that if the minimum wage is raised, the American economy is likely to suffer in a number of ways. Americans-- particularly teenagers, minorities, and low-skilled workers--can expect a significant loss in job opportunities. Moreover a mandatory wage increase will result in countless small businesses throwing in the towel. It has always happened, and it always will. Increasing the minimum wage will therefore harm the working poor and high school and college students. It will not help them. According to a respected University of Chicago economist, Kevin Murphy, every 10- percent hike in the minimum wage reduces job availabilities by 1 percent, with the greatest loss of jobs occurring among the working poor, and among students. This is why I support the Bond amendment which will curtail some of the harsh effects of a minimum wage increase. The Bond amendment will exempt small businesses from the increase in the minimum wage, and it will allow for a training wage for newly hired employees for the first 6 months. As we all know, most new jobs are created by small businesses. The Wall Street Journal confirms Professor Murphy's warning, saying, . . . to the degree that economists ever reach a consensus on anything, they concur that the minimum wage increases unemployment among low-skilled workers. What's clear is that anyone in the White House with an economics degree has been told to hold his or her nose while the political types try to relaunch the Clinton presidency on a minimum- wage hike. Mr. President, while proponents of a minimum wage increase tearfully pretend to be concerned about the welfare of America's least well-to-do citizens, I dare say the proponents are really interested in the next election. As I stated at the outset, this minimum wage issue was locked onto the back burner when the Democrats controlled both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, President Clinton never even mentioned the minimum wage, not once, when Mr. Clinton's party controlled Congress in 1993 and 1994. Then when the Democrats lost control of Congress, there came the minimum wage issue drowning in phony tears. And with it, the crack of the whips of the powerful labor union bosses. When all that happened, President Clinton made haste to mention the minimum wage issue more than 47 times. Mr. President, let's play just suppose: Just suppose Congress and the President do increase the minimum wage, what can the American people expect? The warning has come time after time from bipartisan economists--loss of jobs, higher labor costs, and consequential higher prices for American consumers. Economists at the Heritage Foundation, for example, estimate that a 90-cent increase in the minimum wage will result in more than 200,000 fewer entry level jobs in 1999. Furthermore, according to an article in The Wall Street Journal ``Lawrence Lindsey, a governor at the Federal Reserve Board, says internal staff studies suggest a 90-cent increase would reduce employment by about 400,000 jobs over the long term.'' Retail prices will, in turn, increase through 1998 because employers will pass their increased costs on to the consumers, with the consumers being hit hardest. Unemployment among teenagers will increase by an expected 20 percent and will put an end to many entry-level jobs. This, of course, will deny young unskilled people the priceless opportunity to gain work experience. Labor costs for small businesses, and larger ones as well, will increase, forcing many business owners to make substantial adjustments in the way they do business in order to stay afloat. How will employers deal with these new demands imposed on them by the Federal Government? They will, of course, pass the costs on to the consumers, raising prices for food, goods and services. Many will have to eliminate employees, or reduce benefits to employees--or both. Even new Democrat economist Rob Shapiro concedes as much. Proponents of the increase in the minimum wage want to keep secret the fact that 80 percent of minimum wage earners are not below the poverty line. To the contrary, a high percentage of minimum wage earners are members of middle-income families. The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirm that 37 percent of minimum wage earners are teenagers. The vast majority of high school and college students are working at summer jobs, not struggling to feed their families because they are secondary wage-earners in their families. Moreover, many of these minimum wage earners in fact take home more than $4.25 an hour. The Bureau of Labor Statistics confirms that ``Just over half were employed in retail trade, and another one-fourth worked in services. It should be recognized that for many working in these industries, tips and commissions may supplement the hourly wages received.'' So let the record be clear--despite the statements of Senator Kennedy and other proponents of raising the minimum wage--the babble of voices is trying to sell political nonsense. If Congress really wants to help America's working families, it would reduce taxes instead of increasing the minimum wage. Twenty-eight million households would benefits from a $500 per child tax credit--but Mr. Clinton vetoed that idea. In North Carolina, 758,648 households would have more take-home money with the $500 per child tax credit. But only 42,876 of those households would benefit from the minimum wage increase. Mr. President, I receive thousands of letters each week, and one of them came from Bruce Stakeman of Durham, a small business owner. In explaining the minimum wage to his son, Jeremy, Mr. Stakeman said: I told (Jeremy) that I had a very large yard of 4 acres and would pay him $1 for him to cut. He said no way! I don't blame him. $2.? No. $3.? No. This went on until we reached the dollar amount for which he would be willing to cut my grass. I told him this was the minimum wage. He agreed. If a 13-year-old can understand this, why is it so hard for well educated people in Washington to? Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Bruce Stakeman's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, one doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to understand this issue. It's simply a matter of common sense, and reviewing Thomas Jefferson's ideas about the free enterprise system. The American people deserve better than to be misled by political schemes. After all, in the mid-thirties, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security legislation into law, he warned that this program must never be allowed to become into a political football. Mr. President, look at who's booting around this political football. Exhibit 1 Environmental Technologies, Inc., April 18, 1996. Hon. Jesse A. Helms, Raleigh, NC. Dear Mr. Helms: This is my response to the desire of the liberals to raise the minimum wage. My thirteen year old son and I were in the car when the news came on the radio, about President Clinton's desire to raise the minimum wage. Having owned a small business and managed others I understand the problems associated with its raising. I then began to explain this to my son, Jeremy. Suppose you owned a small business. Let's say for this example we use a restaurant and minimum wage is $4.00 per hour. You have five teenagers employed making $4.00 per hour. You as the employer have taken the chance to start a business and give people a chance to earn a fair wage. You are making a living, but not getting rich. I then asked him, the government tells you that you have to pay the new minimum wage of $5.00 per hour. You want to maintain your standard of living, what do you do? He responded, you could raise your prices. What might happen, I asked? You might lose some of your customers. What else could you do? You could let one of the employees go. Now you have an unemployed person drawing unemployment compensation. Then we discussed what the minimum wage should be? I told him I had a large yard of four acres and would pay him $1.00 for him to cut it. He said, no way! I don't blame him. $2.00? No. $3.00? No. This went on until we reached the dollar amount that he would be willing to cut my grass. I told him this was the minimum wage. He agreed. If a thirteen year old can understand this, why is it so hard for well educated people in Washington to? In Durham, just about everywhere I go has a help wanted sign on their window. Never have I seen a sign for minimum wage, most start at $5.00 per hour. As you see I am opposed to raising the minimum wage. It may mean the difference in my son getting a starter job where he can learn how to work outside the home. Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion. Sincerely, Bruce A. Stakeman.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 includes two essential and much-needed provisions that I've supported for years. Together, these provisions will extend for 3 years the tax credit for employer provided educational assistance to workers, and it will allow spouses to invest fully in tax-deferred individual retirement accounts even though they are not employed outside of their homes. Reauthorization of the employer provided education tax credit, codified at section 127 of the IRS Code, will enable American workers to provide for their families in a more substantial way. First authorized in 1978, this provision has helped more than 7 million working Americans to further their education and to acquire additional skills. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced Senate Concurrent Resolution 57 to extend this critically needed tax provision. I was gratified and encouraged when this resolution was adopted. Now, it's time for the Senate to act on the commitment expressed in Senate Concurrent Resolution 57 and extend the credit through December 31, 1997. Mr. President, this Congress approved a reauthorization of this tax credit in the Balanced Budget Act of 1995. Notwithstanding his rhetoric in support of education, the President vetoed the bill, and prevented the extension of this urgently needed education tax credit, while sowing uncertainty among the workers and employers who were understandably relying upon these tax-free benefits. This uncertainty is particularly acute among workers and employers in areas undergoing sweeping economic changes. In my State of North Carolina, thousands of textile workers have lost their jobs in recent years, while other industries have experienced phenomenal growth. Extension of this credit will help all workers by encouraging employers to provide tax-free education benefits to their employees, thereby benefiting employers by improving worker skills while benefiting their workers by reducing concerns about job security. Mr. President, perhaps the case for extending this credit was made most eloquently by two distinguished North Carolinians. Representative of employer concerns, Nan Keohane, president of Duke University in Durham, NC, wrote to me saying that: We at Duke believe it is important for our employees to achieve their educational goals and to acquire the skills they need to succeed in an increasingly complex society. The ability to exclude education benefits from personal income tax is obviously important to our own employees, and particularly to those who otherwise could not afford the educational costs that the tax on these benefits would require. Typical of letters from workers who have written to me is one by Jeff Stanley, a fine young man who works for Motorola in Research Triangle Park. Jeff has been working toward a Bachelors Degree in Business Administration at North Carolina Wesleyan College; he is close to completing it. However, his employer-provided education benefits are, he says, ``taxed at approximately 40 percent'' and that ``[t]his extra expense is causing a financial hardship. I would very much like to complete my degree within the next year, but due to the extra expense of the taxation, I may have to delay the completion.'' Passage of the Small Business Job Protection Act will ensure that Jeff Stanley can complete his education without those benefits being made subject to a 40-percent tax rate, the effect of which is to discourage pursuit of a life-long education goal. This time, I hope the President will permit this important provision to become law. Another provision of the bill proposes that spouses may invest fully in an individual retirement account. Current law prohibits these working spouses from investing more than $250 in an IRA. Yet, if the same spouse works outside the home, he or she is able to participate fully in IRA tax-deferred investments--to the tune of $2,000 per year. The Small Business Job Protection Act eliminates this double-standard and recognizes the value of those who labor in the home. In the process, it will benefit the estimated 18.6 million households with married couples. Many of those households include a parent who chooses to work at home, frequently sacrificing more lucrative careers for the more rewarding job of raising children. It's common sense that the tax code shouldn't discourage these parents from working in the home. Mr. President, the IRS Code is a testament to the big-spending leviathan known as the Federal Government. In addition to over-taxing American citizens, the Code contains countless irrational provisions which ought to be scrapped. It's too bad that politics caused this bill to be burdened with an unwise increase in the minimum wage; rammed down the throats of countless thousands of small businesses who will have to eliminate untold numbers of entry-level jobs that are so meaningful to young workers today.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, July 8, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,154,104,445,604.38. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,430.90 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business, Friday, July 5, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,153,659,808,407.00. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,429.74 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 27, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,118,682,872,218.91. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,303.19 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Glenn and the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell, as an original cosponsor of this amendment. I have a clear and simple reason for supporting this amendment. I am appalled at the legal gymnastics in which the administration has engaged for the purpose of avoiding sanctions against Communist China. This, mind you, Mr. President, was after Beijing had supplied critical dual use technology to another nation's nuclear weapons program. At a minimum, the administration's refusal--on May 10, 1996-- to determine that sanctionable activity occurred under section 2(b)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945 undermined the credibility of the United States' effort to discourage trafficking in nuclear weapons technology. This administration traded away our vital national security concerns in exchange for a denial by the Beijing government that it knew that Government-owned entities were in fact selling highly specialized ring- magnets to other countries, and China's promise not to do it again--and we all know what that promise is worth. In any event, that is all it took for China's nuclear traffickers to make a complete mockery of United States sanctions legislation. Now, let's examine, for the record, what the Chinese had to say in order to placate the Clinton administration: As a state party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons [NPT], China strictly observes its obligations under the treaty, and is against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, or assisting other countries in developing such weapons. The nuclear cooperation between China and the countries concerned is exclusively for peaceful purposes. China will not provide assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities. China stands for the strengthening of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime, including the strengthening of safeguards and export control measures. Mr. President, if China truly observed its obligations under the NPT, it would not persistently violate Article I of the treaty stipulating that a nuclear weapons state party to the treaty shall not in any way encourage, assist, or induce any nonnuclear weapons state to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons. Article III of the treaty prohibits countries from providing equipment to process, use, or produce fissionable material to unsafeguarded programs in nonnuclear weapons states. If China were abiding by all of its NPT obligations, why would it need to pledge to refrain from assisting unsafeguarded facilities? Maybe China intends to abide by only selective parts of the NPT, just as it appears to adhere selectively only to portions of the Missile Technology Control Regime guidelines. This latest pledge is worthless. It is second-verse-same-as-the- first, a song we have all heard before. In 1984, Chinese Premier, Zhao Ziyang, tried to downplay concerns over China's covert assistance to aspiring nuclear powers by declaring, at the White House, that ``we do not engage in nuclear proliferation ourselves, nor do we help other countries develop nuclear weapons.'' A decade later, in 1994, China piously proclaimed its ``shared commitment to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons * * *'' to escape punishment for its transfer of M-11 missiles to Pakistan. Mr. President, if I had given my granddaughters a nickel every time China made a false promise, there would be a loaded piggy bank on Julia's bedroom dresser. The history of United States-Chinese relations is littered with broken Chinese promises and worthless pledges. We now have the spectacle of the Chinese promising to enforce their promises regarding intellectual property rights--even as reports arrive that pirate CD factories continue to operate in China. Taking Red China at its word is perilous and foolish, particularly when the firm that just finished escaping sanctions for its export of ring magnets to Pakistan now plans to export a uranium conversion facility to Iran. In fact, I am astounded at the ferocity with which this administration attacked China when the interests of Hollywood and the entertainment industry were at stake. But compare that to the administration's meek and mild reaction to Chinese trafficking in nuclear materials. I cannot imagine a case in which our national interests have seemed more skewed. So, Mr. President, this amendment will strengthen existing sanctions law by requiring the President to withhold export-import bank financing from anybody who encourages the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If we have to close off every escape route in legislation, one by one, to force this administration to deal with China's proliferation activities, then that is what we must do. In any event, I am not prepared to sit idly by as China offers platitudes in order to escape any and all punishment for its actions. And I certainly am not willing to underwrite loans to the very firm that is transferring nuclear weapons technology to Iran.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. I thank all three Senators.

Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I wish to stress that this is a bipartisan resolution, and I wonder if I might ask the distinguished clerk to read the cosponsors so that they might be shown in the Record.

Mr. HELMS. I certainly thank the Senator.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send a Senate resolution to the desk and I ask that it be stated.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, all decent and honorable human beings join in the condemnation of the brutal terrorists who participated in Tuesday's cowardly and contemptible attack on United States military personnel in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. All of us send our condolences to the families of the 19 brave Air Force servicemen and women who died in the attack, and we offer our prayers to the hundreds of wounded U.S. military personnel. This tragedy has touched my home State of North Carolina. Airman 1st Class Paul Blais of Kinston was among those killed in the bombing. We send our condolences and prayers to his family. Also we convey our deepest sympathies to the people and the Government of Saudi Arabia for the many scores of Saudi citizens who were wounded in the attack. Mr. President, the United States is a world leader, a nation with global responsibilities, and is therefore necessarily obliged to assign young Americans in uniform to almost every corner of the world to protect the interests of the American people and our allies. When and wherever young Americans sacrifice their lives we are reminded of the big price paid to maintain America's global obligations. This price has been especially high in Saudi Arabia, where another bombing last November killed five Americans. Despite the cost, Mr. President, we must stand firm in our support for Saudi Arabia. Terrorists will not and cannot drive the United States out of Saudi Arabia. U.S. interests in that country, and in the Persian gulf, are clear and compelling. We have a vital national interest in maintaining the stability of this strategically important region and shielding our friends in the gulf from the expansionist designs of rogue regimes in Iran and Iraq. Mr. President, since the dust has barely settled from the blast, the facts are not yet entirely clear. Nobody yet knows who is responsible for this cowardly attack. I am confident that our Saudi friends will make every effort to apprehend and punish those guilty of this outrage and if this bombing turns out to be the work of a hostile foreign government, I hope that the President will respond swiftly and harshly. Through this tragedy, we must remember to thank our friends in Saudi Arabia for their rescue efforts, which have won praise from United States officials. We should be grateful for the lives that may have been saved by their prompt reaction. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, there are a number of red herrings flying across the Senate in an effort to politicize this issue and scare senior citizens and others. But the bottom line of this issue is whether we will support the search for new medicines or undermine it. Let me quote from an article that was written by Dr. C. Everett Koop and published in the March 28, 1996, issue of The Washington Times: Generic drugs play an important role in helping lower the cost of medicines. But it is the pharmaceutical research industry that discovers and develops those medicines in the first place, investing billions of dollars in research and development that can span decades without any guarantee of success--an investment made possible by our system of patent protection. Congress should stand firm in its decision to provide greater protection for American innovators. This protection is a leap forward in our ongoing battle to preserve our long- term national health. Speaking of our long-term national health, a company that Senator Pryor frequently criticizes, was recently awarded the highest honor that can be bestowed on a company by the American Diabetes Association. On June 6, Glaxo Wellcome, Inc., which is headquartered in North Carolina, was awarded membership into the Banting Circle. According to the announcement, the award recognizes Glaxon Wellcome's effort to cure diabetes. Dr. Bob Bell, vice president of research at Glaxo Wellcome, explained that ``If we can find that gene or combination of genes that causes diabetes, and link them to specific functions of their proteins, then we can use this insight to develop better treatments.'' Approximately, 15 million people suffer from type II diabetes. How much longer does the Senator from Arkansas think they should have to wait for a better treatment or even a cure for their disease?

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Madam President, at the close of business yesterday, Wednesday, June 26, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,118,103,732,700.15. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,301.59 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations, I also report favorably three nomination lists in the Foreign Service which were printed in full in the Congressional Records of May 9, and June 18, 1996, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar, that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Tuesday, June 25, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,114,148,773,023.82. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,287.21 as his or her share of that debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the American Petroleum Institute reports that for the week ending June 21, the United States imported 7,900,000 barrels of oil each day, 1,100,000 barrels more than the 6,800,000 barrels imported during the same week a year ago. Americans relied on foreign oil for 55 percent of their needs last week, and there are no signs that this upward spiral will abate. Before the Persian Gulf War, the United States obtained about 45 percent of its oil supply from foreign countries. During the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s, foreign oil accounted for only 35 percent of America s oil supply. Anybody else interested in restoring domestic production of oil? United States producers provide jobs for American workers. Politicians had better ponder the economic calamity sure to occur in America if and when foreign producers shut off our supply--or double the already enormous cost of imported oil flowing into the United States--now 7,900,000 barrels a day.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I think so often of that November evening long ago, in 1972, when the television networks reported that I had won the Senate race in North Carolina. It was 9:17 in the evening and I recall how stunned I was. I had never really anticipated that I would be the first Republican in history to be elected to the U.S. Senate by the people of North Carolina. When I got over that, I made a commitment to myself that I would never fail to see a young person, or a group of young people, who wanted to see me. I have kept that commitment and it has proved enormously meaningful to me because I have been inspired by the estimated 60,000 young people with whom I have visited during the 23 years I have been in the Senate. A large percentage of them are greatly concerned about the total Federal debt which back in February exceeded $5 trillion for the first time in history. Congress created this monstrous debt which coming generations will have to pay. Mr. President, the young people who visit with me almost always are inclined to discuss the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, no President can spend a dime of Federal money that has not first been authorized and appropriated by both the House and Senate of the United States. That is why I began making these daily reports to the Senate on February 25, 1992. I decided that it was important that a daily record be made of the precise size of the Federal debt which, at the close of business yesterday, Monday, June 24, 1996, stood at $5,110,926,525,572.12. On a per capita basis, the existing Federal debt amounts to $19,275.61 for every man, woman, and child in America on a per capita basis. The increase in the national debt in the 24 hours since my report yesterday--which identified the total Federal debt as of close of business on Friday, June 21, 1996--shows an increase of more than $1 billion--$1,225,352,306.06, to be exact. That 1-day increase alone is enough to match the total amount needed to pay the college tuition for each of the 181,695 students for 4 years.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, 4 years ago when I commenced these daily reports to the Senate it was my purpose to make a matter of daily record the exact Federal debt as of the close of business the previous day. In my very first report on February 27, 1992, the Federal debt the previous day stood at $3,825,891,293,066.80, at the close of business. The Federal debt has, of course, shot further into the stratosphere since then. Mr. President, at the close of business this past Friday, June 21, a total of $1,283,809,880,199.26 had been added to the Federal debt since February 26, 1992, meaning that the exact Federal debt stood at $5,109,701,173,266.06. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,271.14 as his or her share of the Federal debt.

Mr. HELMS

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, at the close of business yesterday, Thursday, June 20, 1996, the Federal debt stood at $5,108,536,115,006.17. On a per capita basis, every man, woman, and child in America owes $19,268.73 as his or her share of that debt.