U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–465 2012

THE HEALTH CARE REFORM LAW: ITS PRESENT 

AND FUTURE IMPACT ON SMALL BUSINESS 

AND JOB CREATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, OVERSIGHT, 

AND REGULATION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

MARCH 16, 2012 

Small Business Committee Document Number 112–058 

Available via the GPO Website: www.fdsys.gov 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri, Chairman 

ROSCOE BARTLETT, Maryland 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina 

SCOTT TIPTON, Colorado 

CHUCK FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JEFF LANDRY, Louisiana 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

ALLEN WEST, Florida 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

JOE WALSH, Illinois 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD HANNA, New York 

NYDIA VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York, Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

MARK CRITZ, Pennsylvania 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE CLARKE, New York 

JUDY CHU, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

GARY PETERS, Michigan 

BILL OWENS, New York 

BILL KEATING, Massachusetts 

LORI SALLEY, Staff Director 

PAUL SASS, Deputy Staff Director 

BARRY PINELES, General Counsel 

MICHAEL DAY, Minority Staff Director 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

Hon. Mike Coffman .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Dr. Keith Small, Dentist, Cody Dental Group, Denver, CO ................................ 3 

Mr. Matt Tynan, Secretary and Treasurer, Tynan’s VW, Nissan, Kia, Aurora, 

CO .......................................................................................................................... 4 

Mr. John W. Leevers, President, Leevers Supermarkets Inc, Franktown, CO .. 7 

Mr. Mark Rogers, President and Chief Operating Officer, Roaring Fork Restaurants, Castle Rock, CO ................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX 

Prepared Statements: 

Dr. Keith Small, Dentist, Cody Dental Group, Denver, CO ......................... 19 

Mr. Matt Tynan, Secretary and Treasurer, Tynan’s VW, Nissan, Kia, 

Aurora, CO .................................................................................................... 22 

Mr. John W. Leevers, President, Leevers Supermarkets Inc, Franktown, 

CO .................................................................................................................. 29 

Mr. Mark Rogers, President and Chief Operating Officer, Roaring Fork 

Restaurants, Castle Rock, CO ...................................................................... 34 

Questions for the Record: 

None. 

Answers for the Record: 

None. 

Additional Materials for the Record: 

2011 Economic Impact Report: The Economic Impact of Franchised New 

Car Dealerships on the Colorado Economy ................................................ 39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

THE HEALTH CARE REFORM LAW: ITS 

PRESENT AND FUTURE IMPACT ON SMALL 

BUSINESSES AND JOB CREATION 

FRIDAY, MARCH 16, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, 

OVERSIGHT AND REGULATIONS, 

COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., at the 

Greenwood Village City Hall Auditorium, 6060 South Quebec 

Street, Greenwood Village, Colorado, Hon. Mike Coffman [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representative Coffman. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Good morning. This hearing will come to 

order. 

I would like to thank each of you, especially our witnesses, for 

taking time out of your schedules to be here with us today as we 

examine the impact of the President’s health-care law on small 

businesses. 

Before we begin, I would also like to sincerely thank all of the 

staff here at Greenwood Village City Hall for hosting this hearing. 

Over the past few years, our committee has held several hearings 

on topics related to health care and small businesses. Many agreed 

the health-care system needed reform because the cost of health 

care continued to escalate. 

Small-company owners said that although they had traditionally 

offered health care to their employees and wanted to continue to 

do so, the concentration of health insurers gave them few options 

for purchasing coverage, and those options were extremely expensive. 

Witnesses at our hearing suggested a number of solutions, such 

as allowing small businesses to join together to purchase health insurance across State lines, which could increase competition and 

reduce costs; tort reform to bring down the cost of physicians’ malpractice insurance; and permitting physicians assistants, nurses, 

and other health-care practitioners to expand their duties to reduce 

the cost of health-care delivery. 

Very few of them suggested that we should mandate employers 

to provide health insurance, raise Medicare and other taxes, or increase penalties for health savings account withdrawals. Unfortunately, each of these provisions are found in the President’s healthcare law. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

Of specific interest to us in this hearing is the employer mandate 

and how that provision will affect small-business job creation. Beginning in 2014, the new health-care law requires any employer 

with more than 50 full-time equivalent employees during the preceding calendar year to provide health insurance to their employees. If the employer fails to do so, he or she faces penalties up to 

$2,000 or $3,000 for each employee. 

My concern is what happens to those businesses who are right 

around 50 employees, and there are a lot of these companies. According to the Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy, 

there are approximately 143,000 firms that employ between 40 and 

74 people, with a total of about 7.5 million employees at those 

firms. 

Is a company that is just below the 50-employee threshold likely 

to hire more workers if they are unable to provide health insurance? Is a company that has 52 employees going to maintain a contract in face of penalties? 

Regardless of the answers to those questions, the greater concern 

here is why, with the economy struggling with historically high unemployment, is the President so intent on implementing laws that 

make small-business owners make those kinds of decisions. We 

ought to be making it easier for them to expand and produce jobs, 

not harder. 

That leads me to another point I would like to discuss at this 

hearing, the confusion and uncertainty the President’s health-care 

law is causing small businesses as it is implemented over the next 

few years. 

Between now and full implementation in 2018, 46 new provisions 

will be implemented. This is on top of the 46 that have already 

been implemented over the past 2 years. The sheer number of 

things to track and comply with has got to be confusing for small 

mom-and-pop shops struggling to get by in difficult economic times. 

And it all goes back to the question: Why are we making hard 

things harder for small businesses instead of easier? 

We have an excellent panel to discuss these issues, and I again 

would like to thank everybody for being with us today. 

Our first witness is Dr. Keith Small from Denver. Dr. Small is 

the senior member of the Cody Dental Group, joining the staff in 

1967. For 7 years, he was a member of the visiting faculty at the 

L.D. Pankey Institute for Advanced Dental Education in Key Biscayne, Florida. 

He is currently a clinical associate professor in the Department 

of Restorative Dentistry at the University of Colorado School of 

Dentistry. 

He also serves as mentor to the Centennial Dental Study Club 

in Denver, is a member of the Advisory and Leadership Board of 

Directors of the University of Colorado at Denver Health Sciences 

Center School of Dentistry, and is a member of the Denver Academy of Restorative Dentistry. 

Thank you for being with us today, Dr. Small. 

Dr. Small, could you go ahead and move that microphone closer 

to you? Thank you. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

STATEMENTS OF KEITH SMALL, DMD, CODY DENTAL GROUP 

DENVER, COLORADO; MATT TYNAN, SECRETARY AND TREASURER, TYNAN’S VOLKSWAGEN, NISSAN, KIA, AURORA, COLORADO, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE DEALERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN W. LEEVERS, PRESIDENT, LEEVERS 

SUPERMARKETS INC., FRANKTOWN, COLORADO, ON BEHALF 

OF THE NATIONAL GROCERS ASSOCIATION; AND, MARK 

ROGERS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 

ROARING FORK RESTAURANTS, CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, 

ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE ASSOCIATION 

STATEMENT OF KEITH SMALL 

Dr. SMALL. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for 

this chance to present our small-business concerns of the healthcare reform law, perhaps even to the continued existence of our 66- 

year-old dental practice. 

Our corporation attorney for the professional corporation has advised us that if there are not significant changes, that it would 

raise question as to whether we can continue to exist in our existing organization. And part of that is that we are just above the 50 

threshold of employees. 

The Cody Dental Group was founded January 1, 1946, and is 

now the oldest dental group practice in the United States. We have 

62 employees, 14 dentists, 14 hygienists, two x-ray technicians. 

And since 1986, we have had a cafeteria plan in place for our employees. 

The cafeteria plan has three different components, the medical 

insurance category, the flexible spending accounts with a maximum 

of $8,000 per year, and the child or daycare with a maximum limit 

of $5,000 per year. The cost of the medical insurance aspect of the 

health plan right now seems to have more questions than it does 

answers, in terms of determining what those actual costs will be. 

But with a typical overhead cost in a dental office easily in the 

range of 70 to 80 percent or more, the impact on small business 

is a major, major concern. 

I would like to address some comments specifically to the flexible 

spending account portion, because that has such a major impact on 

our employees. 

During the health-care reform legislative debate, there were numerous comments made to the media that there would be no adverse impact on the so-called middle class. I think that was defined 

as $200,000 per year income for single filers, or $250,000 for joint 

filers. And at the signing, President Obama had the observation 

that within 10 years, the new law would produce a $1.4 trillion 

surplus. I am not sure how that math comes about. 

However, the major impact on the health-care reform law comes 

into the flexible spending category of the cafeteria plan. January 1, 

2011, the coverage for over-the-counter medical-related products 

was deleted. And my observation is that probably has more of an 

impact on the family units with children. 

But the biggest impact will be January 1, 2013, when the maximum flexible spending account will be lowered from $8,000 per 

year to $2,500 per year. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

This represents an almost 70 percent reduction in coverage. 

Since 1986, employees in our office who were faced with major 

medical expenses were able to plan ahead and obtain coverage for 

the major part of those by setting aside up to the $8,000 limit in 

their cafeteria plan. 

One of the current reference points in terms of cost is superior performing hearing aids will cost in the range from $7,000 to 

$8,000 today. The January 2013 maximum so then would not even 

cover the cost of one hearing aid. There are also a number of prescription costs, newer drugs, which typically are much higher in 

cost, where your annual cost will exceed $2,500 per year for that 

single prescription. 

So I would submit that the severity of the reduction targets the 

very individuals in that so-called middle class that weren’t really 

supposed to be severely impacted by this new law. 

The flexible spending accounts do have a use-it-or-lose-it proposition, so there is built-in protection there against overuse, and the 

protection is also provided so there will not be a conduit for taxfree funds to flow to the pocket of that participant. 

So basically, the abrupt change in the flexible spending account 

of the reduced medical over-the-counter items in January 2011, and 

then almost 70 percent reduction taking effect next January in 

2013, does represent a major and sudden negative impact on the 

budget of the people who need the help the most. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Small. 

Our next witness is Mr. John Leevers—oh, I’m sorry. I stand corrected. 

Next, we have Mr. Matt Tynan, secretary and treasurer of 

Tynan’s Volkswagen, Nissan, Kia in Aurora. A native of Denver, he 

earned his bachelor’s of arts degree from Benedictine College in 

1987, and a master of science degree from Emporia State University in 1990. Matt has previously served as cochair of the Legislative Policy Committee for the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association and as a trustee of the Catholic Foundation of Northern Colorado from 2005 through 2011. 

He has been active in his family’s automobile dealership since 

1994. Combined, his company employs approximately 200 individuals in Aurora and Fort Collins. 

Thank you for coming here and for your testimony, Mr. Tynan. 

STATEMENT OF MATT TYNAN 

Mr. TYNAN. Thank you, Chairman Coffman, for holding this important hearing. 

Again, I am Matt Tynan, secretary and treasurer of Tynan’s 

Volkswagen and Tynan’s Nissan in Aurora, Colorado, and Fort Collins Nissan, Kia in Fort Collins, Colorado. 

I am here testifying on behalf of the Nation’s 16,000 franchised 

automobile dealerships, and the almost 1 million people they employ who are represented by the National Automobile Dealers Association. 

In 1963, my father, Edward Tynan, began Tynan’s as a family 

business, and we are very proud to still be a family business. While 

we have remained in business for nearly 50 years, the last 10 or 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

so have been extremely challenging. As reported by Tim Jackson 

in the Colorado Automobile Dealers Association, new car sales in 

Colorado reached 208,000 units in the year 2000. In 2009, new car 

sales in the State of Colorado had dropped 104,000 units. Obviously, this 50 percent reduction in new car sales negatively impacted our business and nearly every other new car dealer in the 

State. 

Over that same period of time, to put this in perspective, sales 

at our Volkswagen dealership, a dealership that began operating in 

1968, went from approximately 100 new units a month to 30 units 

per month. 

Over these years, we took steps to reduce our expenses by eliminating certain positions, changing pay plans, and reducing benefits. 

Our most expensive line item is our people. Our people are also our 

most valuable asset. 

The people we employ are some of the best and brightest in the 

industry. The calculation is simple: The greater their success, the 

greater the success for our dealership. 

We make a real investment in our employees. We have to. To 

avoid regulatory entanglement, our sales and finance operations 

staff must be kept up-to-date on changes in the law, both at the 

State and Federal level. But it doesn’t stop at that front office. 

With the complexity of today’s vehicles, servicing vehicles requires strong computer skills. We must invest in our technicians, 

provide them with training, special tools and equipment necessary 

to fix and maintain today’s cars and trucks. 

One way we attract and keep our staff is by providing competitive benefit packages, and this includes a rather costly health plan. 

Health care is a very personal issue for all of my employees and 

for me and my family. I see and talk to virtually every one of our 

employees in the Metro Denver stores on a daily basis, so I know 

how important this is. 

I am not a large corporation. I do not work out of a penthouse 

office or behind a big mahogany desk. I get the same health coverage for my wife and five kids as we provide for our employees. 

These people are part of my family, and we want to do right by 

them. I might add that the same is true for thousands of other 

dealerships across the country. 

Our H.R. people work each year to find the most affordable plans 

with the best coverage. Each year, that becomes increasingly challenging, and each year it becomes more difficult to build a business 

and hire additional staff. 

Over the last 9 years, our health insurance premiums have remained relatively flat. We have accomplished this by increasing 

deductibles and co-pays, changing coverages, and aggressively 

shopping our health insurance plans. We have had to change carriers. 

We are not alone. Every small business across Colorado that is 

trying to do the right thing faces exactly the same burden. In just 

2 years, providing health coverage for the men and women who 

work for me and their families will be turned on its head and not 

for the better. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

The implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable 

Care Act, a centerpiece of this Administration’s domestic agenda, 

will drive costs higher, not lower. 

Since we employ more than 200 people, we would be required by 

law to offer our full-time employees health benefits with specified 

affordability and minimum value requirements. If the coverage 

does not satisfy these requirements, we pay a fine. Even if one fulltime employee went to a new health exchange and purchased a 

government-subsidized plan, we pay a fine. If we choose not to offer 

health coverage, we pay a fine. 

Instead of trying to do the best by our employees, it will become 

a simple math calculation: Is the fine less than providing coverage 

for our people? 

The same law that mandates that we provide this coverage provides a loophole so we don’t have to. How does this make sense? 

Within a relatively short amount of time, the health-care delivery 

system will be less accessible and far more expensive than today. 

Supply and demand dictate what we can get for a new or used vehicle. With the economy suffering the past several years, the value 

of used cars is significantly higher, because demand for them is 

high. The same is true for health care. 

With mandatory coverage, the demand for health care will sky 

rocket. With a limited supply of hospitals, doctors, and nurses, the 

price of care will go up and the cost to cover our employees will 

rise and continue to do so. 

Eventually, health-care costs will escalate so high it will be impossible to offer an in-house plan, so our only option will be to pay 

the fine and to have our employees fend for themselves in the 

state-regulated, government-subsidized program. 

Many other businesses will do the same calculation and see the 

State exchanges as a viable option. As the Government program 

becomes overwhelmed by people forced into the State exchanges, 

our Federal penalties and our State taxes will have to increase to 

cover the influx of people. 

So how do we fix this problem? A simple solution is a complete 

repeal of the entire health-care reform bill, replacing it with an affordable system that preserves consumer choice while not sacrificing quality care. I am sure that is easier said than done. 

Small steps have been made to reduce the burdens of health-care 

law. I applaud Congress for successfully repealing the 1099 tax-reporting requirement for any expenditure over $600. That provision 

alone would have been death by a thousand paper cuts. It would’ve 

cost our staff hours and hours of paperwork. 

I want to thank Chairman Coffman for his efforts to eliminate 

that burden. It is a good first step, but it is far from enough. 

Another important step would be to eliminate the so-called employer mandate to require employers to offer plans with certain 

coverage requirements. The mandate changes the meaning of fulltime and leaves the unelected bureaucrats to define minimum 

health coverage, leaving small-business owners uncertain about the 

future. 

I mentioned this earlier in my testimony, fortunately the American Job Protection Act, H.R. 1477, would repeal this mandate. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

Chairman Coffman, I saw that you were an early cosponsor of 

that legislation, and I commend you for doing so. 

H.R. 1477 removes any requirement that employers with over 50 

or so employees provide insurance coverage or pay fines. Repealing 

this provision is absolutely critical to keeping this program from 

harming my dealership and small businesses throughout Colorado. 

In closing, I want to thank Chairman Coffman for the opportunity to testify today. Our goal, as every other entrepreneur in 

Colorado, is to build a thriving, self-sustaining business to support 

our family and the families of the men and women who work for 

us. 

I urge you to continue your work to fix the problems associated 

with the new health-care law, to do what you can to implement 

real, market-driven reforms that increase competition and make 

health insurance more affordable. 

Thank you. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tynan, for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. John Leevers, president of Leevers Supermarkets Inc. in Franktown. He is actively involved in the daily 

operations of LSI and has 22 years of experience in retail operations, human resources, and finance. Mr. Leevers is also responsible for long-range planning, evaluating acquisitions, establishing 

strategic direction, and initiating store expansions and capital investment. 

He is a 1993 graduate of the University of Denver, with a degree 

specializing in finance and management. 

I appreciate your participation, Mr. Leevers. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. LEEVERS 

Mr. LEEVERS. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the National 

Grocers Association on an issue that will undoubtedly affect the 

way in which all small businesses operate. 

The NGA is a national trade association representing and servicing the retail grocery and food companies and wholesale distributors that comprise the independent sector of the food distribution 

industry. An independent retailer is a privately owned or controlled 

food company operating in a variety of formats. 

NGA members also include retail grocery or food companies, and 

wholesale distributors, affiliated associations, as well as manufacturers, service suppliers, and other entrepreneurial companies that 

support NGA’s mission and philosophy. 

My name is John Leevers, and I am the president of Leevers Supermarkets Inc. We were founded in 1938 by my grandfather. My 

brother and I are third-generation grocers, celebrating 75 years 

next year. I’m excited about that. 

Like many small employers around the country, we have tried to 

make the best of difficult times and hope the worst is behind us. 

We have been fortunate in that we have recently been able to open 

three new stores here in Colorado. 

But we fear our future growth will be stifled by the effects of Affordable Care Act. The Affordable Care Act has changed the way 

in which small businesses think about benefits. And in this new 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

era, the decisions companies make with regard to benefit administration will affect their ability to compete. 

As a result, we have spent a considerable amount of time and resources analyzing how to proceed in 2014, when what are key provisions for us are implemented—the most significant, the employer 

mandate. We welcome the opportunity to share these experiences 

with the committee. 

Leevers Supermarkets today operates 13 stores and employs 

around 300 people here in Colorado. Eleven of our Leevers stores 

operate under the Save-a-lot banner, and as such utilize a pricedriven format. The focus of this price-driven format is on efficiencies. We differ from traditional grocery stores in that we sell 

only a limited assortment of product, and our operations are extremely streamlined to keep costs low. 

In 2014, we are faced with the decision to either continue to offer 

coverage as we have it today and absorb additional costs of administration burdens associated with the Affordable Care Act, or, alternatively, to drop coverage, as some of the others have suggested, 

leaving our employees to fend for themselves, despite our years of 

corporate support of our employees’ benefits. 

Simply put, neither decision is attractive to us, and both decisions could have significant repercussions on our business. 

Over the years, as health-care costs have increased, we have 

seen erosion in the benefits we have been able to offer. In the notso-distant past, we offered benefits to all employees and health-care 

coverage was free. More recently, in light of the cost of care, we 

have been forced to limit eligibility in our plans to full-time employees and individuals who hold certain jobs. 

If the Affordable Care Act is maintained as written, we will have 

a very difficult decision in front of us beginning in 2014. It is likely 

that we will not be able to be in a position to afford health-care 

benefits of any kind. 

For us, like most small employers, discontinuing coverage makes 

sense from an economic standpoint. As I stated earlier, our stores 

employ between 20 and 40 employees at each location, and we have 

roughly 300 employees. 

Because of costs, we have had to restrict employee eligibility in 

our plan, and we currently have 65 individuals participating. We 

self-insure our health coverage and our costs are roughly $10,000 

per covered life. Thus, the total cost of our health benefits for our 

company today is roughly $600,000. And we pay about 80 percent 

of such costs, or about $480,000. 

The Affordable Care Act greatly expands the number of employees who would need to be covered on our plan by defining a fulltime employee as an employee who has averaged at least 30 hours 

of service per week over the course of a month. According to the 

shared responsibility provisions of the Affordable Care Act, we 

must either provide such individuals with coverage or pay a penalty of $2,000 per full-time employee. 

Prior to the Affordable Care Act, we would not have considered 

employees who worked 30 hours per week full-time and consequently would not have offered them the opportunity to enroll in 

the plan. This provision alone increases the number of eligible employees in our plan from 65 to around 250. If we were to continue 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 

coverage, even if our medical trend costs were to stay stable, which 

is not likely to be the case, the cost of our plan beginning in 2014 

would skyrocket to around $2 million. 

Again, the Affordable Care Act penalty for discontinuing coverage is $2,000 per full-time employee, disregarding the first 30 

full-time employees. If the 30-hour workweek definition stands, our 

total number of employees defined as full-time for health-care benefits would rise to roughly 250. Thus, our liability under the shared 

responsibility provision would equal about $440,000. 

As you can see, purely from a financial standpoint, the decision 

to drop coverage makes sense for us. This is especially true considering the fact that because of our size, there’s very little we could 

do to bend the cost curve on the cost of benefits in the coming 

years. As you know, the cost of health-care coverage is heavily dependent on the size of your pool. In general terms, if you have a 

large pool, the impact of a catastrophic event will be spread over 

a large number of people and the per capita cost will be less. This 

is as true for self-insurance as it is for insurance. Thus, one strategy for lowering costs is becoming included in a larger pool. The 

Affordable Care Act, however, prohibits small businesses with more 

than 100 employees from purchasing coverage through an exchange. Thus, while other small employers may benefit from the 

aggregation possible through an exchange, we are, unfortunately, 

precluded from exploring this option. 

However, if we must make the decision to discontinue coverage, 

we are cognizant that certain noneconomic factors can come into 

play. Like any business, our employees are our greatest asset. We 

understand that dropping coverage is likely to have a profound effect on employee relations. 

Members of the committee, the Affordable Care Act has placed 

our business between a rock and a hard place. The shared responsibility provision forces us to try to decide between two bad decisions. We can choose to continue the provision of health benefits 

and be saddled by unsustainable costs, resulting from mandated increases not only on the number of beneficiaries we must cover 

under our plans, but also the richness of the benefits we must 

offer. 

The alternative, discontinuing coverage, is equally problematic 

and forces us to ignore time-tested justifications for providing benefits that will result in severe employee-relations issues. 

Thus, unless significant changes are made to the Affordable Care 

Act, it stands to do irreparable damage to many small businesses. 

Specifically, we recommend the definition of full-time employee be 

amended to reflect the way in which employers generally categorize 

employees as full-time or part-time. 

I look forward to working with you on these changes and answering any questions you may have. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Leevers. 

Our final witness is Mr. Mark Rogers, president and chief operating officer for Roaring Fork Restaurants. Mr. Rogers leads over 

250 employees in several locations throughout Colorado. He also 

serves as the secretary and treasurer of the Colorado Restaurant 

Association. He received a bachelor of arts degree from Baylor UniVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:45 Nov 13, 2012 Jkt 076465 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A465.XXX A465

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
10 

versity, and his masters in business administration from the University of Colorado. 

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Rogers. 

STATEMENT OF MARK ROGERS 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is Mark Rogers, and I’m grateful for the opportunity 

to address some of the ramifications the new health-care law will 

have on employers and the workforce, particularly the impacts the 

new law will have on small businesses and job creation. 

While this law includes some important insurance reforms and 

increased access to coverage for many people, taken as a whole, the 

law is biased toward mandating coverage rather than providing 

meaningful cost control. 

This legislation will create increased uncertainty in our longterm business planning and force employers to choose between absorbing rising premiums or paying mandated penalties, slowing the 

growth of small and midsized businesses as we struggle with the 

costly new requirements during a time of economic recovery. 

I am a small-business owner and franchise partner for Cheddar’s 

Casual Cafe, a company my father originally cofounded in 1978. 

Now, along with my father and sister, I have started a pair of companies called Roaring Fork Restaurants, Inc., to expand Cheddar’s 

franchises across the State of Colorado, as well as Riverside Restaurant Group, LLC, which facilitates the purchase and construction of restaurant properties. 

Our first Cheddar’s franchise restaurant is Aurora; our second 

house in Colorado Springs. We truly are building this business 

from the ground up. My father made sure of such, as I have worked 

as a server, bartender, dishwasher, assistant manager, and manager, obviously, teaching me a great deal about the restaurant 

business. 

As we continue our franchise expansion, I am particularly concerned about the health care employer mandate, which will prohibit and hamper our growth. 

I am here today on behalf of the International Franchise Association, or IFA. The IFA’s mission is to safeguard the business environment for franchising worldwide. IFA represents more than 90 

franchised industries, including more than 11,000 franchisees, 

1,100 franchisors, and 500 supplier members nationwide. There are 

more than 800,000 franchised establishments in the United States, 

creating 18 million American jobs and generating $2.1 trillion in 

economic output each year. 

According to a study prepared for the IFA by the Hudson Institute, the franchise industry will be particularly hard hit by the employer mandate provision of the new health-care law. 

The new law will affect tens of thousands of franchise businesses 

like mine, putting more than 3.2 million full-time employees earning their living in franchise business at risk of losing their jobs, 

and adding costs of more than $64 billion in employer mandate 

penalties, not including the additional costs in time for regulatory 

compliance. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
11 

The report also shows that the new law will make it harder for 

small businesses with 50 or more employees to compete with those 

that have fewer than 50 employees. Therefore, the effects of the 

new law are anti-small business growth by inadvertently discouraging many franchisees from owning and operating multiple locations, creating a competitive disadvantage for franchisees who do 

own more than one or two locations. 

The study also demonstrates that the employer mandate provides 

an incentive for franchisors and franchisees to replace current fulltime workers with part-time and temporary workers. This is the 

wrong direction for both our economy and millions of unemployed 

Americans. 

The real irony here is that in the name of expanding health coverage, health-care coverage, Congress and the Administration are 

making it more difficult for workers to enter and eventually be promoted in the workforce at a time when we desperately need 

growth. 

I will go off script here for a moment and say that this will 

change not only the restaurant industry in Aurora and Colorado, 

but across the entire country. It will either force restaurants to cut 

their staffs significantly, or it will create two kinds of employees, 

almost a class system of employees, those that are full-time, those 

that are part-time. Restaurants will absolutely have to cut those 

that are full-time, those that are working more than 30 hours a 

week, or else have to provide insurance coverage. 

And in our case, and in many restaurants across the country, it 

is much more expensive to pay for that insurance coverage than 

pay for the penalty. So therefore, they will cut their staffs to almost 

strictly part-time employees. 

I think that that class system within restaurants, at least, would 

be terrible for the entire industry, as well as the country. 

I think it will also force people to get multiple jobs, and what you 

are going to see is there are servers and bartenders and cooks who 

work 40 to 42 hours a week, supplying their families with everything that they need. Well, with restaurants having to cut their 

staffs and cutting those folks to now less than 30 hours, or 29 and 

half hours per week, they will be forced to get a second job. So now 

you’re going to be forcing many folks in the entire restaurant industry to now go get multiple jobs, which will make it more difficult for them, driving to multiple jobs. This is tax season—having 

to file multiple returns. It’ll make it much were difficult. 

It’ll force restaurants to pass the costs as well on to the consumer. Our restaurant, and I look at our corporate entity as a 

whole, established that it will force us to raise our costs, our menu 

prices, 3 to 4 percent at minimum in order to deal with paying the 

penalty. And I would say that based on what we have established, 

we will pay the penalty, because it will be much more expensive 

to pay the coverage. 

We assume that, as you said, with 250 employees, you’re talking 

about more than $400,000 a year that it will cost our businesses 

just to pay those penalties at $2,000 per employee. 

This new health-care law imposes yet another unnecessary layer 

of regulatory burden on business owners as we attempt to understand and comply with these new provisions and face the increasVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:45 Nov 13, 2012 Jkt 076465 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A465.XXX A465

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
12 

ing costs of doing business. Because of the employer mandate, it 

will be more difficult for businesses to estimate the cost to expand 

and hire new workers for tens of thousands of business owners already struggling to recover from the deepest recession we have had 

since the Great Depression. 

Franchise small-business owners should not be forced to choose 

between absorbing rising insurance premiums and paying tax penalties for noncompliance. The framework of the current law threatens the economic viability and job creation potential of franchised 

businesses vying to recover from the economic downturn by imposing excessive cost burdens on the backs of small businesses. 

As one of those small-business owners, I urge Congress to further 

review the impacts and consequences of the health-care reform law 

as a whole and repeal this onerous employer-mandate provision. 

I would also say, with regard to our business of over 200 employ- ees, 200 to 250 employees, it will cost us $400,000 a year. I will 

say that even my father yesterday talked about changing our management structure, so you’re not only talking about the hourly employees, you’re talking about changing our management structure. 

We have four to five managers per restaurant. And you think, well, 

perhaps we have to change those from working 40 to 50 hours a 

week down to 30 hours a week, in order to just pay the penalties. 

Now you’re talking about affecting the lives of all those managers. 

And the last thing I wanted to say, and it struck me what these 

gentlemen said. I always tell people I’m in the people business. I 

am not in the restaurant business; I’m in the people business, 

whether that is our employees or our customers. 

With our employees, I’ve paid for hotels, traveling, I’ve given advances, I’ve given loans, I’ve done everything I can to take care of 

our employees. Now I think of the fact that I’m going to be the one 

that is going to be cutting back on their benefits, and I’m to be the 

one making life harder for them just in order to survive, in order 

to be able to actually have employees and take care of customers, 

we will have to face paying the penalty instead of the costs of providing coverage to all those employees. 

Thank you very much for the time. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Mr. Rogers, thank you for your testimony. 

I think all of you have well-expressed the unintended consequences of this legislation. 

Let me ask some questions to all of you. 

And the first one is, I think employers want to offer health insurance to their workers, both to do the right thing and to stay competitive. But thin margins leave employers unable to absorb these 

continuing cost increases. 

First of all, do you think most small firms want to offer health 

insurance but simply can’t in this economy? 

Why don’t we start with you, Mr. Small, and then we will go 

down. 

Dr. SMALL. Yes, absolutely. It just becomes cost-prohibitive to be 

able to do this. 

I moved to Denver in 1967. For the first 15, 18 years, we did pay 

all of the medical insurance costs for our employees. And then it 

got to the point, as costs were increasing, when I first got here, it 

was like $5,000, $6,000 to cover everybody on my 25-, 30-member 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
13 

staff. As we got larger, but particularly as the premiums skyrocketed, it got up to the point where we were up in the $50,000, 

$60,000 range. And the consultants told us that within 3 years, 

their estimate was that we would be between $104,000 and 

$120,000 in premiums. At that point, for the next 3 years, we froze 

what our participation was and had the employees pay that differential as that price went up. 

In 3 years, we had exceeded the $120,000 limit for our staff premiums by about $20,000. And so at that point then, we stopped 

doing that. We had some other group plans, but those have faded 

also. 

So there is no question, the desire would be to provide that kind 

of coverage for your staff. And they really are like family. I have 

four people I’ve worked with who have been on my staff, on our 

staff, for over 40 years. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Thank you, Dr. Small. 

Mr. Tynan, do you think that most small firms want to offer 

health insurance, but simply can’t in this economy? 

Mr. TYNAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The car dealers that I am familiar with would like to offer those 

benefits to their employees, and the comments that you made in 

your opening statement about ways to address the increasing costs, 

I believe that our associations would be in concurrence with those 

comments about addressing tort reform, going across State lines, 

and the other comments that you made in terms of addressing 

health insurance. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Okay, and just let me mention that we will 

have tort reform—there will be tort reform legislation on the floor 

of the House in April, next month. 

Mr. Leevers, go beyond your firm. Do you think most small-business employers want to offer health insurance but simply can’t do 

to the economic situation that we are all in right now? 

Mr. LEEVERS. Certainly, every small-business person that I 

know, and entrepreneur that I know, would prefer to offer benefits. 

It is not only the right thing to do and people feel like it is the 

right thing to do, but it is what we need to do to be competitive 

with big firms and what is going on out there in the market. So 

the simple answer is, absolutely everyone would prefer to offer 

those benefits if they could afford to. 

We used to offer them to everybody at no cost, and over the 

years, we have had to just maintain coverage, the best coverage we 

could, for the people that we could, we have had to cut back on who 

is eligible. And then we had to begin, since we are self-insured, we 

pay up to the first $40,000 of any individual claim. So I, effectively, 

have a $40,000 deductible with all my employees. 

We have had to continue—we started out at $5,000. In order to 

make sure that our coverage stays as good as it can be, it went to 

$10,000, and to $20,000, and to $30,000, and to $40,000 over the 

years, just to maintain somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 to 10 

percent increases on an annual basis. 

So we certainly realize, I think, something needs to be done 

about the cost of the health care in this country, especially for 

small- and medium-size businesses. And everybody would certainly 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
14 

prefer to offer if they can, but we don’t think this is the way to do 

it. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. I would say, of course, my business is a little different in the restaurant business, because it is such a transient 

workforce, it is difficult to think of providing health-care coverage 

for someone that might work for you for 3 weeks. 

But I would say, as an entrepreneur, looking at the big picture, 

of course. 

We have a young woman that is a cook for us. She started as 

a culinary assistant making $7.50 an hour in Aurora when we 

opened the restaurant 2 years ago. She has worked up now to 

make about $12.50 an hour. She doesn’t have any health insurance. 

And about 3 weeks ago, she was hobbling around. And she had 

ingrown toenail, but should have any health insurance, so she 

didn’t want to have to go spend a bunch of money to get ingrown 

toenail fixed. She has a child home, and that was just too expensive. 

Well, without insurance, it costs about $850 to have her ingrown 

toenail fixed, and you know, my father and I paid for her—I paid 

for her to go to the doctor and get it taken care of, because it was 

the right thing to do to help her. 

In the greater scheme of things, I think that is what you’re asking, of course, we want to take care of our employees and, of 

course, we want to provide insurance or health care for any and all 

of them. 

If the restaurant business wasn’t such a transient workforce, I 

would say, absolutely, we would want to provide for each and all 

of them. And you know, I think the case with that young worker, 

Justine, shows that we absolutely want to take care of any and all 

of our employees. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Thank you. 

And the next question I think some of you have certainly touched 

on this, but for the record, if you could just reiterate your position. 

One of the main things I wanted to highlight in this hearing is to 

show this law will impact job creation and business expansion. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, beginning in 2014, employers with 50 or more employees will have to provide insurance 

coverage to their employees or face financial penalties. My question 

to all of you, do you think a company that is just below the 50-employee threshold will be likely to hire more workers if they are unable to provide health insurance? Is a company that has 52 employees going to maintain or contract in the face of these penalties? 

Any insights from your current employment levels could help as 

well. 

And we will start with Dr. Small again. 

Dr. SMALL. I don’t think there’s any question that if you’re close 

to that 50 level, you are going to make sure you don’t go above it 

or you don’t go below it. 

With 62 on our staff, we have looked at that and said, is there 

any way that we can get down below that 50 level. That is impossible for us. We are close, but not close enough. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
15 

We have, because of a dentist who just recently retired and 

moved to Florida, we have capacity to take two additional practices 

into our facility right now, but we’re holding off because we are trying to find out some answers on subjects that we are talking about 

today before we do any kind of expansion. That kind of expansion 

would add at least six and maybe eight additional employees. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Okay. 

Mr. Tynan. 

Mr. TYNAN. Mr. Chairman, I think any company would look at 

the situation if they were at that threshold level to see if pulling 

back to below 50 employees, if they could make their business operate and reduce their exposure to the mandates within the healthcare reform. 

We have three separate corporations, and we group those three 

separate corporations together for the purposes of expanded our insured pool. And I would think we would have to look at breaking 

those three individually up, and perhaps even making one of our 

corporations, splitting it into two, to get below the 50-person 

threshold, if we thought that we could get adequate health insurance coverage at an affordable price with that smaller pool, vs. 

staying grouped together with all of our corporations. 

I’m certain any company that was on the threshold at 50—our 

smallest corporation has 60 employees. Could we cut back to 49 

people? 

Chairman COFFMAN. Now, would that inherently cause an increase in premiums, because you’re dealing with a smaller group? 

So you’re fragmenting into smaller groups. 

Mr. TYNAN. Right. 

Chairman COFFMAN. So would the aggregate amount be more 

than you would have otherwise purchased for those groups? 

Mr. TYNAN. Exactly. And that is why you have an insurance 

broker who is going to run the numbers for you and can say, if we 

break it up this way, it will be less expensive and you will have 

less exposure, or you will be better off paying the fine, going to the 

exchange, or you should continue your health insurance plan. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Mr. Leevers. 

Mr. LEEVERS. I would echo those sentiments. We’re in an industry where the national average for grocery stores net profit is between 1 and 2 percent. That is published numbers. 

When you have something that is such a significant cost as 

health care and other benefits are with employees, people are going 

to do whatever they need to do to figure out how to work with that, 

because the numbers I proposed earlier are just simply untenable. 

As you proposed, would you look at separating, and other companies already do this for other reasons, but separating grocery stores 

into individual companies? Would you look at cutting back in certain areas? Changing the number of employees who are considered 

part-time or full-time, reducing hours under 30 to keep people outside of those? 

Yes, there is no question that small businesses and individual 

stores, in particular, are going to have to look at changing the way 

they do business based on that law. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Mr. Rogers. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

Mr. ROGERS. So insurance for us costs well over $2,000 per employee. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Today it does, okay. 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes. I was thinking about the threshold that you 

said. If you’re at 49 employees and you thought about going to 50, 

and let’s say that it costs half of $2,000 just for coverage, you immediately are going to cost that company $50,000 if it costs $1,000 

per person. If you add and hit the 50 threshold, you will immediately overnight cost the company $50,000. 

So I don’t think there’s any question that none of those businesses at the threshold of 48, 49 people are ever going to want to 

go above at what it is going to cost them. 

And in terms of growth, there are a few public restaurant companies today that look at their business as profit per employee. And 

I know one of them is Outback Steakhouse. And they figure their 

profit per employee is right at $2,000. And therefore, they figure 

for each person they are hiring, and they realize that they have to 

pay the penalty instead of covering folks, then in essence, take 

away all the other costs, at essence, they’re getting zero profit by 

hiring one more person. 

So the thought would be, let’s keep the same workforce and try 

to get more out of that workforce. That is our only shot at trying 

to better our numbers. 

It is a terrible way to look at business. I mean, it is awful. For 

the last several decades, you always, when you were doing well, 

you looked at growing, you looked at adding people to increase 

sales. And I think that people don’t look at their business that way 

anymore, based on this new law. 

Chairman COFFMAN. I’m going to start the reverse, with you, Mr. 

Rogers, this time. 

Instead of mandates and penalties, that I believe will do little to 

actually lower health insurance and delivery costs, what other 

steps could be taken to reduce costs? Do you think being able to 

purchase health insurance across State lines or medical malpractice reform might help to reduce costs, or other ideas that you 

might have? 

Mr. ROGERS. I think that being able to buy insurance across 

State lines would absolutely help. I think it would make it more 

competitive. 

As it is today, our insurance continues to go up, regardless. So 

I think making it more competitive in any possible way would help. 

And, yes, I think that tort reform there would help greatly, too. 

I think that helped where I’m from, the State of Texas, helped 

greatly. And I believe, if you could have Federal tort reform, of 

course that would help. 

So anyway to make it more competitive would help all industries. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Right. Thank you. 

Mr. Leevers. 

Mr. LEEVERS. I would agree that the tort reform, in our opinion, 

would be a significant step in the right direction. 

Being able to pool and buy across State lines is significantly 

impactful to us, because we’re big enough to be out of the small, 

but we are not big enough to get into any large pools. So that really 

has significant impact for us, being able to pool up with others. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 

In addition to that, again, the nature of our business is very 

part-time. We have a lot of people who don’t look at our business 

as their primary. It might be a second job. It might be a high 

school job. It might be an evenings and weekends job for a housewife. 

So that coupled with the fact that our business fluctuates fairly 

dramatically from the first of the month to the end of the month, 

and seasonally, makes these things very, very challenging. 

So reforming the definition of a full-time employee on a per 

month basis is absolutely critical for us. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Mr. Tynan. 

Mr. TYNAN. Mr. Chairman, tort reform seems to me to be the single biggest issue that needs to be addressed. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Dr. Small. 

Dr. SMALL. I would second that comment. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Thank you. 

Let me ask a question for Mr. Rogers and then anybody else can 

respond to it. 

You mentioned in your testimony that you essentially learned 

the restaurant business from the bottom up. In light of this law 

and the coming regulations, along with other regulations coming 

out of this Administration, I’m wondering if the Federal Government might be dampening the entrepreneurial spirit. Are these actions slowly but surely killing an entire generation of potential entrepreneurs? What do you think, Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I think without a doubt. I look at our parent 

company, when we purchased the rights to Colorado as a franchise 

territory, we became a franchisee instead of a franchisor. I saw my 

father was an entrepreneur for 34 years with this business, and I 

wanted to follow in his footsteps. 

I look at it today, knowing that our corporate group has the opportunity to buy us out again, similar to the way we did when we 

sold out to them a few years ago. So I look at this opportunity and 

think, when I sell out, do I want to be an entrepreneur again and 

go start another restaurant company? I think, do I want to go out 

and purchase a small restaurant chain and grow it? 

And just last night I told my wife I might not. I said it is so difficult today as an entrepreneur, especially in the restaurant business, and thinking about this health-care mandate, that it would 

be better, in my opinion, to go more of a corporate route. So I think 

there’s no question it’s killing the entrepreneur spirit of wanting to 

go in and start something and create something and grow something, because it is hard on the little guy. 

And I see how easy it was, or, it was much easier to start businesses when my father created this company in 1978. And how 

much more difficult it is today, with all the regulation, and this, 

in a way, I agree with you, is absolutely killing the entrepreneur 

spirit. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Mr. Leevers. 

Mr. LEEVERS. My father’s favorite saying is all I ever wanted to 

do is sell groceries for just a little bit more than I pay for them. 

And somehow we’ve created so much regulation in general 

around business today that we have to do a whole lot more than 

sell groceries for a little bit more than we paid for them. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
18 

And I think it absolutely is dampening the spirits of entrepreneurs and their willingness to take the risks and incur the expenses and the risks involved with those, to comply with all kinds 

of regulations. This just layers on another huge chunk on top of 

what is already I think drowning small business in America. 

Mr. TYNAN. Mr. Chairman, recently a customer who is purchasing a car on our Nissan showroom floor told me that there was 

more paperwork in buying a car than there was in buying their 

last home. And we are in a highly regulated industry, both at the 

State and Federal level, and we have revenue earners and revenue 

burners. 

We need far more revenue earners in our business than burners. 

But regulations like this health-care mandate require so much time 

and energy to try to understand how to comply, what your potential costs are and the fines that you’re going to face, that we’re 

burning more revenue just trying to understand it. It is certainly 

stifling entrepreneurial spirit in our businesses. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Dr. Small. 

Dr. SMALL. I think there is no question that it stifles that spirit. 

In the dental field, we run a much smaller cottage industry. We 

don’t have those kind of issues that these other three gentlemen 

have. But no question, it is a dampening effect. 

Chairman COFFMAN. Well, let me tell you, I thank you so much 

for your testimony today. And if you have any additional comments, certainly you can submit them for the record. But I will also 

defer to you in a minute if you have something. 

I just want to say that I think that there are tremendous unintended consequences with this legislation. And I’m concerned about 

it in terms of job creation. It seems to me that, from the testimony 

today, that certainly the cost, the increasing cost, is an unintended 

consequence, but also that for businesses to survive, for small businesses to survive, a push from full-time to part-time employees, to 

come under that threshold established in the law, and also for 

firms to say, you know, I’m not going to add that 50th employee. 

And so, I mean, this legislation is clearly, I think, as described 

today, is going to have a chilling effect on small businesses. 

And of course, it’s interesting to see in Washington, D.C., that 

some of the very large and politically connected employers are getting the kind of waivers that are not available to small businesses. 

So are there any additional comments you would like to make 

today, anybody would like to make today? 

Thank you so much for your testimony. It has been very instructive. 

Okay, we’ll close here. With that, as we conclude, I would like 

to mention for the record that members of the committee will have 

5 legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials 

for the record. 

[The information follows:] 

Chairman COFFMAN. With that, the hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:04 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
19 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 76465A.001
20 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 76465A.002
21 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 76465A.003
22 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 76465A.004
23 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 76465A.005
24 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 76465A.006
25 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 76465A.007
26 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 58 here 76465A.008
27 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 59 here 76465A.009
28 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 76465A.010
29 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 76465A.011
30 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 76465A.012
31 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 76465A.013
32 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 76465A.014
33 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 76465A.015
34 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 76465A.016
35 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 76465A.017
36 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 68 here 76465A.018
37 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 69 here 76465A.019
38 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 70 here 76465A.020
39 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 71 here 76465A.021
40 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 72 here 76465A.022
41 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 73 here 76465A.023
42 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 74 here 76465A.024
43 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 75 here 76465A.025
44 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 76 here 76465A.026
45 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 77 here 76465A.027
46 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 78 here 76465A.028