An analysis of congressional trips by Medill News Service in partnership with American Public Media's Marketplace program and American RadioWorks found that all private interests spent about $14.4 million during the same period to send House and Senate members on more than 4,800 trips. Congressional rules permit such trips if they are part of "official duties" and if members disclose where they went, the amount spent, and who paid for the trip.

Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon's top contractor with nearly $22 billion in 2003, paid for nine congressional trips worth a total of $6,300.

Boeing, which had more than $17 billion in defense contracts in 2003, sponsored five trips for a total of $2,700.

Northrop Grumman, which did $11 billion in business with the Pentagon in 2003, spent about $5,300 on seven trips for lawmakers.

A $1,500 plane ticket for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to attend a briefing and tour a Lockheed Martin facility in Binghamton, N.Y., was the most expensive defense contractor-sponsored senatorial trip.

Among House members, Rep. Scott McInnis, R-Colo., took the most expensive trip sponsored by a defense contractor -- a $1,210 trip to a Northrop Grumman shipbuilding plant in Pascagoula, Miss., on Feb. 25, 2003. McInnis listed $1,200 for a plane ticket and $10 for a meal.

One defense policy analyst with several years of experience on Capitol Hill expressed surprise that defense contractors appear to have sponsored so few trips.

According to Lorelei Kelly of the Henry L. Stimson Center, an independent, nonprofit think tank devoted to enhancing international peace and security, members of Congress may not be reporting all junkets for fear they might raise questions of undue influence.

Kelly also speculated that many defense-related fact-finding trips might be paid for by think tanks or other organizations that receive funding from defense contractors.

Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Defense lobbyists have a strong influence in Congress because they practice "surround-sound influence tactics," said Kelly.

Those tactics include not only all-expenses-paid trips, but also direct campaign contributions and Washington-based lobbying like sponsoring breakfasts and lunches on Capitol Hill where policy views of defense-related industries are touted, Kelly said.

According to an analysis of Federal Election Commission data, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin each spent more than $30 million in lobbying activities and more than $3 million in direct campaign contributions since 2001.

"They think [lobbying and campaign activity] is going to be to their advantage," said Peter W. Singer, a defense analyst at the liberal Brookings Institution. "It may be anything from swaying Congress for additional purchasing of existing weapons, for research and development of their own particular weapons systems or to cause a shift in the strategic outlook."

Defense firms differ from other groups trying to influence Congress because the nation's defense policy is an "inherently public interest" and not a private one, Singer said.

Both Singer and Kelly said defense contractors often convince lawmakers to back spending on a particular program because it will benefit the economy of their district.

Return to Power Trips: Congress hits the road