In February 2004, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., went to several African countries to help set up deals for a telecommunications company whose top executive later pleaded guilty to bribing him. In April of that year, the congressman led a delegation that included several U.S. lawmakers on a weeklong tour of Brazilian cities sponsored in part by the same firm.

The FBI, which has launched an investigation of Jefferson for allegedly accepting more than $400,000 in payments from Vernon Jackson, chief executive officer of Louisville, Ky.-based iGate Inc., has yet to publicly comment on the Brazil trip.

"It [iGate] was introduced to us as a small black-owned telecom company who wanted to do business in Brazil," said Mark Smith, executive vice president of the Brazil-U.S. Business Council, a trade group of Brazil's largest American investors that organized the trip. Smith also said Jackson went on the trip.

The trip appears to have been "a marketing opportunity for Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Jackson," said Naomi Seligman Steiner, the deputy director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group. "None of these gentlemen seem to have a moral compass, and this trip makes it all the more clear."

Since 2004, Jackson and iGate have been linked to three trips to Africa, including visits to Nigeria, Cameroon and Ghana, during which Jefferson — and sometimes Jackson — would promote the telecom company to foreign government officials, according to court records.

Travel disclosure records reviewed by the Center for Public Integrity show that 12 people — seven members of Congress, two of their relatives and three staff members — went on the trip to Brazil, collectively spending more than $70,000.

Members of Congress and their aides accepted more than $600,000 in free travel from pharmaceutical interests during a 5½-year period in which drug company profits climbed, in part due to federal legislation favorable to the industry.

Dozens of the trips were approved by lawmakers, who had significant personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry or later worked with drug-makers. Almost all of those same legislators voted in favor of the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Act, which led to a windfall of profits for the industry.

"It's been a highly profitable trade-off" for pharmaceutical companies, said James Love, a drug industry critic and the director of the nonprofit Consumer Project on Technology. "They give out some free perks, hand out some [rides on] private jets, sponsor some trips and give some campaign donations. And in return, they make billions."

Treated to a dose of travel

The Center for Public Integrity found that from January 2000 through June 2005, lawmakers and staffers accepted at least 325 trips ranging from one day to several days long — with an average cost of nearly $1,900 — from pharmaceutical companies or trade groups that count drug-makers among their members. Nearly 60 percent of those trips were taken by Republican lawmakers or their aides.

More than 80 other trips were co-sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and non-pharmaceutical interests. The cost of those trips was not included in the Center's total.

Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored travel seems to be on the increase. In 2000, drug companies and related trade groups spent $53,000 on trips by members of Congress or their aides. That figure rose in each full year of the Center's study, peaking in 2004, with expenditures of $181,000.

Trade groups' spending accounted for nearly 80 percent of the industry's total expenditures, at least $478,000 worth of travel.

Much is known about James Dennis' trip to Europe in the spring of 2003. The 10-day trip took the aide to Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to Berlin, Geneva and London, where he discussed "international tax matters" with local officials. His transportation cost $7,700, his food $1,140, and his lodging $2,180.

But what is conspicuously absent from Dennis' travel disclosure form is the name of the organization that paid his $11,000 in expenses.

A Center for Public Integrity study of disclosure records for congressional officials' privately funded travel from January 2000 through June 2005 found that Dennis' form is one of roughly 130 with the line for the sponsor's name left blank. In effect, the omissions allowed special interests to spend more than $230,000 on travel anonymously.

The Center's analysis found that hundreds and perhaps thousands of disclosure documents filed over the 5½-year period were incomplete, illegible or late. While many of these documents were later amended to fill in the blanks, some remain unclear, obscuring the details of privately sponsored travel from the public's view.

Maria Najera, Bingaman's deputy press secretary, chalked up Dennis' omission to a simple mistake. Speaking on the aide's behalf, she said that he hadn't been aware that he had missed the line for the sponsor's name.

Such omissions are "a reflection that nobody was watching until now," according to Craig Holman of the watchdog group Public Citizen."The form was reviewed by the ethics committee," Najera said, "and he thought they would have notified him if there was anything missing."

"The Senate ethics and the House ethics committees were not making sure that these forms were being properly filled out," Holman said.

The travel disclosure forms are not archived online. Viewing them requires visiting the Senate Office of Public Records or the House Legislative Resource Center.

In January 2003, Katherine E. Dedrick went to the Kona Hawaiian Resort to speak at a conference sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives, a trade group.

During her seven-day stay, the legislative assistant to Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., also found time for some recreation, courtesy of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) labor union. The disclosure form she initially filed with the House ethics committee revealed that she took a snorkeling trip and two helicopter tours, at a total reported cost of $560.

According to DeFazio's office, the ethics committee found that Dedrick's participation in two of the outings was an apparent violation of House ethics rules, which stipulate that such recreational activities "are rarely acceptable" unless valued at less than $50.

The Senate has similar rules. Both the House and the Senate define a gift as any "gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan, forbearance, or other item having monetary value."

Dedrick wasn't alone. A Center for Public Integrity analysis of disclosure forms for trips during a 5½-year period beginning in January 2000 found that more than 50 other congressional travelers also accepted gifts valued at more than $49.99.

Because of the poor quality of information on the disclosure forms, it's difficult to ascertain the full extent of gift rules violations. The Center found that about 2,000 of the almost 3,800 filings listing "other expenses" of $50 or more provided no details.

Members of the House of Representatives and their staffs skirted congressional travel rules about 190 times in a 5½-year period ending in mid-2005 by bringing unauthorized companions on trips bankrolled by private groups, the Center for Public Integrity has found.

A review of disclosure documents filed for travel from January 2000 through June 2005 showed that some lawmakers and their aides violated the 1995 House travel rule which states that only one family member — limited to a spouse or child — may be taken on privately funded trips. Others bypassed the regulations by getting waivers from the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct that allowed other relatives to accompany them.

That particular rule, intended to prevent privately sponsored travel from turning into excursions for the whole family, was loosened in January 2005. But predating that change, the Center found many infractions, including cases of siblings flying to Israel and Spain, and of mothers traveling to New York and Puerto Vallarta, Mexico

The Center's investigation found two types of violations committed by House members and staffers: accepting all-expenses paid trips for parents, siblings, grandchildren and others excluded under travel rules; and accepting sponsored travel for more than one guest. Evidence of similar infractions was not found in the Senate, possibly because the disclosure form used by that chamber does not ask travelers to identify a companion or itemize that person's expenses. "There's potential for abuses in having private sponsors pay for family vacations," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a watchdog organization in Washington.

In 2001, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, improperly accepted transportation and lodging expenses for her sister, Lee Helen Johnson Willis, for a trip to Grenada.

Over the course of 5½ years, U.S. senators and their aides reported taking companions on privately financed trips far less often than their counterparts in the House, a study by the Center for Public Integrity found.

A Center analysis found that the filings for about 16 percent of the privately funded travel taken by House members and staffers from January 2000 through June 2005 — about 2,700 of nearly 17,000 trips — reported a companion for whom the sponsor also covered expenses. In comparison, fewer than 5 percent of Senate forms (roughly 300 of more than 6,200 trips) disclosed companion travel.

The House disclosure form asks for the name of the accompanying family member and his or her relationship to the traveler. The document also provides spaces for itemization of companion transportation, lodging, meal and other expenses. The Senate form does not ask for the name of the companion — or if there was one at all.The reason for the disparity could be explained largely by the differences between the forms used by the two houses of Congress.

The only mention of companions on the Senate form is in small type just above the space provided for travelers to list their expenses: "Please include any expenses reimbursed for an accompanying spouse or dependant."

Senate travel rules don't require the member or aide to itemize companion expenses separately; the traveler may provide either the exact amount or a "good faith estimate" of the total reimbursed for all expenses. As a result, the disclosure is hardly uniform among travelers:

Over the past three years, as Airbus and Boeing have been locked in a bitter fight over each other's government subsidies, an obscure nonprofit has sponsored at least 10 trips for congressional officials to Toulouse, France, where Airbus is headquartered.

The Washington-based European Institute, whose board includes executives from dozens of the world's most prominent companies, aims to facilitate communication among government and industry leaders in Europe and the United States.

The institute's spokeswoman, Maria Papathanassiou, acknowledged that some congressional officials were taken to an Airbus operation in France. "We were trying to show the relationships between European companies and American companies," she said. "We just happened to be able to go to the Airbus facility."But at least 38 of its trips in recent years — virtually all of the $370,000 it spent on international travel — have included stops in France and often involved aviation issues. Although its largesse could have influenced lawmakers, the institute is not registered to lobby.

A Center for Public Integrity analysis of travel disclosure and lobbying documents found that the institute is one of about 200 organizations that paid for congressional trips during a 5½-year period beginning in January 2000, but did not register — even though some behave like lobbying groups.

Some of these unregistered groups write letters petitioning the U.S. government on issues and testify before Congress on proposed legislation. A few also receive government contracts and grants, giving them incentive to sponsor travel and lobby on issues relevant to them.

In all, these unregistered groups paid for more than 6,500 trips during the period reviewed by the Center, spending at least $20 million. This represents more than 40 percent of all the money spent on privately financed trips.

In April 2000, then-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham sent his chief of staff to Panama for what the aide described on his travel disclosure form as "education and research."

Although the cost of the three-day trip taken by Dewitt "Trey" Hardin III — roughly $1,900 — was not remarkable, the timing and sponsor are intriguing.

Hardin traveled to Central America about two weeks before the date on which Cunningham, a California Republican, has said he took his first bribe from defense contractor Brent Wilkes.

It's unclear what Hardin did in Panama. In an e-mail to the Center, he described the trip as "my visit to a San Diego constituent's facility in Panama to provide research and education about their work," which "was taken in my capacity as a congressional staff member."Wilkes is the founder of ADCS Inc. And it was ADCS that paid for Hardin's trip, the Center for Public Integrity has discovered.

Hardin said in the e-mail, "I filed the required paperwork with the Clerk of the House of Representatives that discloses details of that travel (i.e., costs, purpose, etc.). I do not have any additional comments to make on this matter."

Nancy Luque, one of Wilkes' lawyers, wrote in an e-mail reply to a Center's request for comment, "I think the trip forms speak for themselves."

Playing a round on Scotland's historic Old Course and watching the Chitimacha Louisiana Open are two very different golfing experiences, but they have one common connection: Jack Abramoff.

Much like Rep. Tom DeLay's St. Andrews junket, records show this trip was financed by a group with connections to the disgraced lobbyist. Greenberg Traurig — the law/lobbying firm that Abramoff worked for at the time — is listed as the sponsor on the travel disclosure form bearing John's signature. Whether Abramoff had a role in coordinating or paying for the trip isn't known, but he was lobbying Congress on behalf of the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana on issues surrounding the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act at the time.In late March 2003, Samuel Jacob Roché, an aide to then-Rep. Chris John, D-La., took an almost $1,500 privately sponsored tripto tour the Chitimacha Indian Reservation that was capped with a free ticket to a PGA tournament.

A review of travel documents by the Center for Public Integrity turned up another congressional trip financed by Greenberg Traurig: A summer 2001 visit to Puerto Rico by David Lopez, then chief of staff to Rep. John Doolittle, R-Calif., that cost more than $1,300.Roché did not return calls seeking comment on the trip.

These two trips are apparent violations of congressional ethics rules, which prohibit lawmakers and their aides from taking travel sponsored by both "registered lobbyists" and "lobbying firms."

The Center called Greenberg Traurig seeking comment on the two trips. In an e-mail reply, spokeswoman Kersten Norlin did not respond to questions about the firm's travel sponsorship, but instead spoke to Abramoff's conduct.