dr. graham, you testified on the additional work penalty and exchange subsidies. work penalty provided by obama care would create. i would like to highlight the fact that the subsidies also impose a marriage penalty. through the tax code. and that's because the key off the federal poverty guidelines -- under federal poverty guidelines, the poverty level let's say for a family of two is at 135% of poverty level for a single individual, rather than double. that means that, for example, two single individuals earning $22,000 a year would lose about $1,400 a year in subsidies. if they became married in one household, earning $44,000, rather than $22,000 each. can you expand on that? >> well, the major problem with the affordable care act in terms of how it's increasing the marginal tax rates in general is that it provides a subsidy to people who are -- to go to the exchange by health insurance that they're below the poverty rate. and the phaseout is relatively -- is relatively steep in order to contain costs. so research that my boss doug holstein and alice greenel di

dr. macfarlane. one of them is younger than the other. 10-year-old son graham, welcome today. thank you for sharing your mom. and to your dad, thank you for sharing your wife. and kristine, i don't know if you have any of your family here. but in absentia, we wish them well. thank you both. >> senator carper, thank you for recognizing the family of our soon to be we hope chairwoman, because i didn't know she had her family here. i'm very thrilled that you noted them. senator alexander, you're next. >> thanks, madam chairman. senator inhofe, dr. macfarlane, commissioner svinicki, welcome. we're glad you're here. i've been very impressed with president obama's nominees to the nuclear regulatory commission. that includes dr. svinicki, or commissioner svinicki, who i know well. and i do not know dr. macfarlane, but i began to get to know her. and i noticed her distinguished background. i too belief it's important for our country to have a full compliment of members of the nuclear regular story mission. commission. i hope, madam chairman, we can make a prompt decision soon. i would

should congress and the white house continue to delay reforms on this important pro graham, or should we act now? dr. blahous. >> i'm an advocate of acting as soon as possible. >> dr. reischauer? >> i think speed action is called for spent how much time, where the actual changes in policy you make need to be sorted implement it next year is a totally separate issue. it is an area where we generally face policy in over long time to get people -- >> you both made a point if you don't act soon it will be impossible. so again, your advice to us, what's the timetable? how soon do we need to act? this year? next year? i mean, your advice to us. >> you know, i think you should act when the time is right. when changes are being made, i mean, -- >> not from a political standpoint. i'm asking you from a trustee looking at the numbers, how much time would you say we have to act, in your belief? >> i would hope that you would act within the next five years. >> dr. blahous? >> yes. with the disclaimer, i'm probably on the pure line of expert you. i'm probably on the estimates with respect to how bad is going to