mr. speaker , i thank my friend , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. kind ) xz4002180 , for yielding me the time . 
i think the best way to understand the difference between the plan that the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. kind ) xz4002180 and i are putting forward and the majority plan is to look at it from the point of view of one of the small business people that we keep hearing referred to over and over again here today . 
my friend , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey ) xz4003000 , often refers to speeches on the floor as posing for holy pictures , and i think that is what is going on here today , where everyone is embracing the small businessman or small businesswoman and saying how much we love them and care about them , and i am sure everyone does . 
but i think what matters is the impact of these various proposals , what the proposals would have on the small business person . 
in my state the cost of insuring a family is about $ 14 , 000 a year . 
so let us take a small business person that has 10 employees and is looking at a situation where he or she would have to spend $ 140 , 000 to insure each of those employees and their families if the employer was going to bear the whole cost . 
that is a huge amount of money , but is probably well beyond the ability of that employer to pay for . 
under the majority 's bill , if we give the majority every benefit of the doubt , if we assume that the majority 's bill will work exactly as they say that it will , the most optimistic forecast is the majority 's bill will save 13 percent in premiums for that employer . 
and let us round it up a little bit and give them the benefit of the doubt further and say it will save $ 2 , 000 per employee off that $ 14 , 000 . 
so what would happen ? 
we would save $ 20 , 000 , and the employer would be looking at spending $ 120 , 000 to insure the families instead of $ 140 , 000 . 
that is not going to do it . 
that is still far more than the person running a machine shop or a small retail store or landscaping business or a delicatessen is ever going to be able to afford . 
this just is not going to happen . 
it is not going to happen . 
our proposal is very different . 
it says that in a case of a small business like the one i am hypothesizing here , where you have about 10 employees , and where those employees make less than 200 percent of the poverty level , which in my state for a family of four would be about $ 40 , 000 , so just about anybody making less than $ 20 an hour or so would be eligible for this kind of subsidy , that is most people . 
that is most people . 
under our plan that employer , if the employer chose to do this , my friend a minute ago said that the employers were mandated to do this , that is not so . 
no one is required to insure their employees under this plan , but if the employer chooses to insure his or her employees , what would happen is they would get a credit of $ 7 , 000 per employee toward the cost of this health insurance , a 50 percent credit . 
so now , my friend , the gentleman from ohio ( mr. boehner ) xz4000360 , the chairman of the full committee , said , my goodness , the government will be subsidizing small employers if we do this . 
it is big government . 
well , government already subsidizes health care for large employers , because they permit the large employers to deduct every premium dollar . 
and that employer is paying at the 36 or 37 percent corporate tax rate , which most of them do . 
that constitutes a 36 or 37 percent subsidy . 
so general motors is getting a nearly 40 percent subsidy , but the person running the delicatessen or the machine shop is not . 
this evens the playing field . 
now , how do we pay for this ? 
now , the chairman knows that under the rules of the house that it would not be appropriate or germane for us to identify the source of paying for this , because it would take it outside of the committee 's jurisdiction . 
there are different views as to how we could pay for this . 
i speak only for myself when i say this , but i would note for the record that the cost of tax breaks to companies that outsource their jobs outside of the united states is $ 100 billion over the next 10 years . 
so if that machine shop , if its competitor takes all of the jobs and moves them to malaysia or mexico , gets a tax break for doing that , which i think is a foolish policy , if we were to repeal that tax break for companies that are outsourcing their jobs out of this country , that would go a long way toward paying for the plan that we are talking about . 
that to me is a pretty good trade-off . 
companies that are sending their jobs overseas would lose a tax break ; companies here in america would gain health insurance . 
vote yes on the kind-andrews substitute . 
