WASHINGTON -- Sen. Arlen Specter yesterday defended a staff member against published charges that millions of dollars in special defense projects had been directed to companies represented by the lobbying firm led by the aide's husband.

Arlen Specter

Mr. Specter was responding to a front-page report in yesterday's USA Today that said his office was instrumental in getting $50 million in projects for six clients of a Washington-based lobbying firm, American Defense International, between 2002 and 2005.

American Defense International's president is Michael Herson, the husband of Vicki Siegel, who handled Mr. Specter's work for the Senate Appropriations Committee until last year when she scaled back her work to one day a week.

Questions remained yesterday about how some of the money ended up in defense appropriations bills, particularly because three of the six companies listed Mr. Herson as their sole lobbyist in Washington at the time they received the money set aside in defense appropriation bills by Mr. Specter's office.

Though Mr. Specter defended some of the projects as important for Pennsylvania and national defense, he said he had never heard of some of the companies.

The funding was placed in the defense legislation through an increasingly controversial procedure known as "earmarking" -- which allows lawmakers to set aside or "earmark" money in spending bills for pet projects or initiatives, usually benefiting their states or districts.

Mr. Specter said his office gets hundreds of requests for the earmarked funds each year and that it would be impossible for him to review each project.

"When I went over these lists of companies only Drexel [University] rang a bell and there I have met on occasion with some of the officials but infrequently and I couldn't tell you what it was about or when it occurred," Mr. Specter said.

But Mr. Specter emphasized yesterday that Mr. Herson never lobbied his office, and said Ms. Siegel assured him she never lobbied for the projects. Just an hour and a half after a conference call with reporters, William H. Reynolds, Mr. Specter's chief of staff, supplied the names of the people they said requested the money for the six projects.

The recipients were Drexel in Philadelphia; Gentex Corp., which has a facility in Carbondale, Lackawanna County; Gestalt LLC, which has an office in Montgomery County; 3e Technologies, with facilities in Indiana County and Philadelphia; and Power+Energy Inc., and Universal Space Network Inc., both of which have offices in suburban Philadelphia.

Mr. Specter and Mr. Reynolds said they do not believe there has been any violation of law or Senate ethics rules, but Mr. Reynolds said the office is taking the precaution of referring the matter to the Senate Ethics Committee for review.

"I would be shocked if [Ms. Siegel] was involved in any earmarking knowing that her husband was involved, but I'm going to check it out," Mr. Specter said. "I do not have any allegation, charge or suggestion of any impropriety on their part, but I'm open to listen."

Several watchdog groups yesterday said the issue had once again illustrated the problems that arise from marriages between Capitol Hill staffers and lobbyists. Such unions are legion in Washington. They said the report also underscored the need to change the rules for earmarks, which have been used by lawmakers to reward lobbyists.

USA Today highlighted recent allocations directed by Mr. Specter's office through earmarks that included $10.6 million in the two most recent defense appropriations bills for Gestalt.

A review of lobbying records filed with the Secretary of the Senate's office yesterday showed that the only firm registered to lobby for Gestalt LLC was Mr. Herson's firm, which received $360,000 between 2002 and 2005 to lobby for the company's military software. But Mr. Specter's office said yesterday that Bill Loftus, the founder of Gestalt, himself requested the money.

Mr. Herson's firm was also the only lobbying firm registered to lobby for Universal Space Network, which received $2.5 million in 2004 for use in an Air Force project involving commercial tracking antennas; Mr. Herson's firm lobbied for the company in 2002 and 2003 but did not lobby for the firm after 2003, according to the records.

Mr. Specter's office said another lobbyist -- Rob Bickhart of Capitol Resource Group -- asked for the money, but Senate lobbying records do not show that Universal Space Network was among Mr. Bickhart's clients.

Mr. Herson's company was the only firm listed as lobbying for Power+Energy, which received $2.5 million in this year's budget for a fuel-cell technology project.

Other major clients of Mr. Herson's firm that received the earmarked funds, including Gentex Corp. and Drexel, also listed other lobbyists registered on their behalf. But the records submitted by Mr. Herson's firm to the secretary of the Senate's office show that he lobbied on the specific projects ultimately approved.

Mr. Herson's firm received at least $180,000 since 2003 from Gentex Corp., which has received more than $9 million in funds earmarked by Specter's office.

Drexel received nearly $21 million in earmarked funds for bio-terrorism and defense networking technology work over the past two years. Mr. Specter's office said the funding for Drexel was directly requested by the University's president and David Urban, a lobbyist at the American Continental Group who is also Mr. Specter's former chief of staff.

Ethics rules do not bar spouses from lobbying, but both lawmakers and members are required to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interests.

That has caused problems for lawmakers such as former Democratic Senate Leader Tom Daschle, who was assailed by critics because his wife was a top lobbyist for companies such as Boeing and American Airlines. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., is married to a lobbyist for Altria Group Inc., the parent company of Philip Morris and Kraft Foods.

A number of Congress members have said they are looking at spousal influence as they draw up lobbying legislation this year, but Larry Noble, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics -- which analyzes campaign contributions and influence -- said the problem cannot be answered by legislation alone. "At some point you have to get across the idea that you just don't do anything that looks this bad," he said.