mr. womack? >> i'm not going to be near as understanding and forgiving for what my colleague mr. diaz-balart brought to the attention of this panel just a few minutes ago in regard to the number of employees that are now receiving in excess of $150,000 annually in earnings. now he went through the full list. i'm going to take 2008 and 2009 and just set them side by side because i can't imagine an explanation that can justify this. that in 2008 there were 46 and in 2009 there were 431. i mean, those numbers, i cannot wrap my head around a one-year growth pattern, unless magically hundreds of those workers were making $149,000 a year and then got a couple of thousand dollars raises and took them over that threshold. so what i'm specifically asking is not necessarily an explanation today because they their may not be one that can be supported better by what research might be able to uncover but i sit in hearings with the national nuclear hearing administration and health institutes and other very, very high level, high energy, high competency level bureaucracies in this government,

mr. womack. >> thank you for your time today, just a couple of questions and i'll have some to submit for the record. kind of a follow-up to line of questioning of mr. alexander. what similarity or differences between the cvs,caremark merger can you identify for the sub committee? >> cvs -- caremark, we approved the merger in 2006, i want to say. somewhere around there, it was one pharmacy and one pbm, exscript s and medco, two pbms and then we went back we had complaints about whether cvs was violating terms of the consent, with we went back and looked at the practices and did an investigation and found that they were in violation, they had put consumers into the doughnut hole by miscalculating the amounts that they owed to seniors earlier than they should, so we got complete redress for those consumer s effected. coming back to your question, one was a merger of a pbm, and a retailer circumstantially, and this is a merger of proposed merger of two pbms. >> as is -- >> they are horizon competitors in other words. >> as has been mentioned because i have a military background, the tri-care

mr. womack, thanks for your patience down there. >> thank you, happy birthday, happy anniversary. my compliments to the secretary for his comments this morning at the rpe energy summit. i thought your comments, i found them to be enlightening. a well attended event by the way. my compliments to the host of the event. i want to stay on the natural gas subject for just a moment. i'm troubled by the fact when you look at the budget numbers, a little over $2 billion in renewable energy request, if i'm reading the numbers correctly, we're looking at just a few million dollars on the subject of natural gas. and as was indicated in that previous round of questioning, that money is dedicated, i think, to, if i heard correctly, to determining whether or not -- you said it's got promise. to make sure we're not doing something environmentally. can you help me -- i know those numbers, that's a wide range. the numbers from the information agency suggests natural gas use by 2035 will be equal to all the renewables put together. those numbers don't seem to match up to me. help me out with that.

mr. womack? >> a couple of follow-up questions. not near at understanding or forgiving for what my league mr. diaz-balart brought to the attention of this panel here just a few minutes ago in regard to the number of employees that are now receiving in excess of $150,000 annually in earnings. now, he went through the full list. i'm just going to -- i'm going take 2008 and 2009 and just set them side by side, because i can't imagine an explanation that can justify this. that in 2008 there were 46. and in 2009 there were 431. i mean, those numbers, i cannot wrap my head around a one-year growth pattern, unless magically

mr. womack. >> thank you, madam chairman and i totally understand the tremendous pressure that your organization is under given the last several years of issues that have already been articulated in this hearing and in other hearings, but i want to go back to some of your numbers for just a minute to be clear. you say you had a record number of enforcement actions and as i'm looking at the testimony, the number was 735 and an impressive list of different actions involving ceos, cfos, senior corporate officers, broker dealers, et cetera, et cetera. but of those 735, it is my understanding that a significant percentage of these actions are really follow-on administrative actions. and i realize they count in the numbers but if i'm looking at the numbers correctly between 2009 and 2011 the number of original cases is actually down. now, am i reading these numbers wrong? >> well, a couple things. first of all, these are apples-to-ams comparisons. we count follow-on administrative proceedings both in the 2009 and 2011 numbers. but i think the point that's been perhaps lost in some of the commentary th

mr. womack, follow up wloon he just said about the salaries. you're absolutely right. there may be a good explanation if there is a whole category of individuals that went up. look at change between 2009 and 2010 and 2011, a large increase again. i'm sure an explanation, what gives me a little bit of reason to pause is the fact that -- by the way, i for one have no problem with, if you need qualified people and have to pay them well. if that's the policy, i don't have a problem with that, but we should know that's the case. if that is the policy. if it isn't the policy and then, again, why are these numbers taking place? i they obvious lay to be answered and i know you will. i know you will. but in -- kind of a, also technical question. in several areas of your request you indicate you expect to keep 1,970 employees and funding that and other places there seems to be an indication that fcc expects to maintain only 1,776 employees. what is the actual number? >> the number is the lower number. the flexibility is requested so that we can continue to look at more efficienc

mr. womack? >> i've got a couple follow-up questions. i'm not going to be near as understanding or forgiving for what my colleague, mr. diaz-balart, brought to the attention of this bill here just a few minutes ago in regard to the number of employees that are not receiving in excess of $150,000 annually in earnings. he went through the full list. i'm just going, i'm going to take 2008 and 2009, and just set them side-by-side. because i can imagine an explanation that can justify this. that in 2008 there were 46, and in 2009 there were 431. i mean, those numbers, i cannot wrap my head around a one year growth pattern, and less magically hundreds of those workers were making $149,000 a year, and then got a couple thousand dollars raised and to come over the threshold. so what i'm specifically asking is not necessarily an explanation today, because there may not be one that can be supported better by what research might be able to uncover. but i said in hand with the national nuclear security administration and health institutes and other v

mr. womack: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for his time and i thank the gentleman from north carolina for his kind remarks. i want to thank the speaker of the house and leader cantor and chairman baucus for -- bachus for giving me the honor and privilege for helping shepherd this important piece of legislation through the house. as was already mentioned in previous remarks, this bill, 886, passed overwhelmingly through this house with i think only a single dissenting vote late last year in the first year of the 112th congress, and it's gone over to the senate and it's come back with an amendment that simply reassures the american people that none of the production costs, other costs associated with the minting of this coin, that commemorates the 225th anniversary of the marshal service, will be borne by the taxpayers. it just further assures the discerning public out here the effort we are doing today, while honoring a great law enforcement agency in the u.s. marshal service, but at the same time does not

mr. womack. we all echo what he just said. thank you for your service. let me just very briefly go back to what mr. womack just followed up -- follow up on what he said about the -- there may be a good explanation for it, if there's a whole category of individuals that went up. when you look at the change between 2009 and 2020 and 2011, there's a rather large increase again. there was an explanation what gives me a little bit of a reason to pause -- by the way, i, for one, have no problem if you need qualified people and you have to pay them well, if that's the policy, i don't have a problem with that but we should know that the case. if it isn't the policy, and then, again, why are these numbers taking place? i think that obviously has to be answered. i knoll you will. in kind of a almost a technical question in several places in the budget request you indicate you expect to keep 1917 employees, that's keeping it flat. and i believe the request was $245.9 million to fund that staffing level. in other places there seems to be an indication that the sec e

mr. womack? >> kind of a follow-up to the questioning of mr. alexander, what are some of the differences between the cvs caremark deliberations and the concerns around the pending merger? can you identify them for the subcommittee? >> sure. cvs caremark, well, we approved the cvs caremark merger may be in 28 06. -- 2006, somewhere around there. that was one pharmacy and one pbm medco and the other, two. then we went back after we had some complaints about whether std's was violating some of the terms of the consent, we went back and looked at their practices and did an investigation and found that they were in violation. they put some consumers into the doughnut hole by miscalculating the amounts that they owed. some seniors, earlier than they should, so we got complete redress for the consumers who were affected. so going back to your question, one was a merger of a retailer essentially and a pbm, and this is a proposed merger of two pbm's, retail. >> i have a military background, and this is important to me. if the ftc should approve the merg

united as a nation, being fair and open to all opinion but never denying a womack sess to health care along with every other american. mr. speaker, i yield back. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair dec [applause] >> what a fabulous welcome from massachusetts. thank you so much and what carrie said is so true, where we're winning best, we're winning by 72%. so far three wins tonight and counties so here we go. we have 10 states to thank people in and i'm going to see if i can get through this list so let me see if i can do this. in alaska -- by the way, they haven't even caucused yet but we are going to thank them anyway. lieutenant governor, senator lisa few could you say key, eric, thank you. idaho, governor butch otters, senator jim rich. frank van der sloot. diamond watkins, travis watts. in north dakota, thank you to senator. in ohio, here we go, senator rob portman, the linder family, eddie crawford, ron and honorary buckeye donald trump. [applause] he was on the radio for us all the time in ohio. in oklahoma, thank you to senator tom coburn, thad, ryan leonard, fred hal