of the pma system. if judges and juries can ignore fda, why can't doctors, hospitals, and patients? and even companies ignore fda? s-540 fosters distrust and disrespect for fda decisions and undermines the public health protection that the pma system is intended to provide. sixth, product liability awards punish companies. there's no question about that. but they do not in any way contribute to safer or more effective pma devices. it is the inevitable adverse events that we know will always occur with a device that lead fda and companies to correct deficiencies and improve the device. but by the time a lawsuit is brought and completed, the problem has been corrected and the safety issue has been resolved to the extent that it can be. if it's not inherent in the device. finally, i fully support compensation of people injured by pma devices. there's no question about that. but the solution is not to farm out fda decisions to juries throughout the country. the answer is not to replace national uniformity w

of the pma system. if judges and juries can ignore fda, why can't doctors, hospitals, and patients? and even companies ignore fda? s-540 fosters distrust and disrespect for fda decisions and undermines the public health protection that the pma system is intended to provide. sixth, product liability awards punish companies. there's no question about that. but they do not in any way contribute to safer or more effective pma devices. it is the inevitable adverse events that we know will always occur with a device that lead fda and companies to correct deficiencies and improve the device. but by the time a lawsuit is brought and completed, the problem has been corrected and the safety issue has been resolved to the extent that it can be. if it's not inherent in the device. finally, i fully support compensation of people injured by pma devices. there's no question about that. but the solution is not to farm out fda decisions to juries throughout the country. the answer is not to replace national uniformity w

>> absolutely not. >> as of today have you returned any political contributions he received from pma, its employees or clients? >> i did not i asked my employee to go through the questions about fannin donors and want to make sure we were not in receipt of any of those funds and i gave to standing order obviously i will never use my campaign funds for personal gain again that should there ever be a question as to the veracity of the contributions if not the be returned i would rather give them frankly to a charity. >> thank you for that, congressman. according to a report citizens against government waste since 2008 he sought earmarks for 52 projects totaling $97.3 million you and i went through some of them before. here is my question. how do you insert a congressman or staffer that calls you and says i want you to spend money on this year markhor to support this earmarks? how do you reconcile that? because i am absolutely convinced that earmarks and the pma group is a classic example and continues stories in the media about the corruption that has been bred by a vis your marking pro

host: was the largest beneficiary of the pma group? >> i do not want to name anyone. there are a few that received a lot of money. our own ethics committee, when you request earmarks, you have to say you have no financial interest in the earmark. our own ethics committee says campaign contributions do not necessarily constitute financial interest. they have greenlighted circular funding. i think that exposes members to investigation. in the house, we should set a higher standard than whether or not you can be indicted or convicted. we ought to say that if there's an appearance of impropriety, we should stay away. i have proposed resolution is to try to get the ethics committee to investigate pma. i offered eight in a row. i got an increasing number of members each time. finally the democrats offered their own resolution to basically force the ethics committee to indicate that it was investigating. host: when will we hear about that? guest: the ethics committee has indicated that it is under review. there's no ticking clock. i would like to see the ethics committee est

there is no distinction between the original and the supplemental pma.he fda in this instance, perhaps incorrectly, what they did was look at all the data on safety and effectiveness in humans. they concluded that the new lead did not require additional human data. i am not a scientist. i cannot say they were right or they were wrong. the doctors more qualified than i to make that judgment. i do not want there to be any confusion about what the process was. >> did you sue because of the difficulties you went through? did you intend to sue? >> when it first happened, i did not intend to sue. i liked my doctors. i did not know there have been a problem with leaves. i was not told the. in october of the year i had my problem, for five months later, a friend called me and said did you see the products? i said i had not. i looked edit and my wife and i discussed it. i did not do anything for a good long time. it was the ende jan. -- the end of january before a contacted the firm. >> i understand you'll be going right from this hearing of to the salt flats in

w we will look at the 95 pma and show you we've got an oacntden the northbound side near the interchange at dale city tying up the right side. and southbound south of fredericksburg, spotsylvania interchange, there is a road work area where the right side is tied up. that should be cleared out very shortly, though. dulles airport, take a look at traffic on the greenway and toll road and find that traffic is in pretty good shape so far heading past route 20. alison, pamela, back to you. >> thank you so much, jim. and time is now 5:4 , and we have 78 degrees on a monday moing. >> stale head today -- some more shocking allegations about michael jackson's children. we're going toell you the latest person now to make a paternal claim. >> and we'll also look at this morning's top stories. you're watching "good morning washington." ♪ [ woman ] ♪ early light breaks through ♪ music and dance calling you ♪ just need that mountain grown lift ♪ ♪ before you share your gift ♪ ♪ now there's rhythm and sound ♪ making their hearts pound ♪ the best part of wakin' up... ♪ ♪ is folgers in your cup heard yo

. >> pma capital is on the list. allied defense is on the list. and american pacific.that those stocks all have? >> well, allied defense and american pacific are two tiny microcaps that are in defense contracting. allied defense makes ammunition. they've had their first profitable quarter. it's in the mid single-digit p/e ratio. american pacific, future earnings about 80 cents. we think, you know, it's trading in the 7 to 8 range. both under tangible book and both, you know, fairly, fairly cheap and fairly stable businesses. >> roger, what's on your list, and what would you be putting cash into at this point given the run-up that we've seen in the market? >> well, the names to talk about today kind of all have different things going for them. one i think is interesting is man toe wok, it's the big crane maker. they also are in the food business. the stock is down 80%, revenue and earnings have plummeted. similar to a lot of financials in that it is down a ton and things -- >> like charles schwab, which is also on your list. >> sure. charles schwab has a very large amou