House ethics panel hones in on pair of lawmakers
WASHINGTON — The House ethics committee announced on Tuesday it had begun formal investigations into Rep. Rob Andrews, D-N.J., and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska.
The panel, which operates largely in secret, said it had voted last month to appoint “investigative subcommittees” to determine whether the lawmakers broke House rules.
Both men have denied wrongdoing in the long-running cases.
The allegations against Andrews center on whether he converted campaign funds to personal expenses, including airfare, hotel bills and other expenses for him, his wife and two daughters to attend a 2011 wedding in Scotland. He later refunded more than $30,000 connected to that trip, according to investigative documents.
Investigators also have looked into Andrews' use of campaign funds to help pay for a party at his home that celebrated the 20th anniversary of his congressional service and his daughter's high school graduation.
The Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog arm of the House, referred Andrews' case to the ethics panel in 2011. The allegations first surfaced in The Star-Ledger in New Jersey.
In Young's case, the ethics panel said it is examining whether he improperly received gifts, used official and campaign resources for personal use or made false statements to federal officials.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Tighter payday loan rules intended to shield debtors
- Search for less-invasive avenue for brain surgery leads to eyelid, UPMC surgical team
- Cancer rates plunge 22% over 20 years
- Super snowy Sunday: Chicago buried; thousands of flights grounded
- Fine weighed in North Carolina river coal ash spill
- Navy abandons ‘global force for good’ to broaden appeal
- Woman gives birth to baby boy on side of Utah highway
- Pregnant smokers persuaded to quit with free diapers
- Goats offered as alternative for clearing area of plutonium
- ‘Drink of the Devil’ unites formerly feuding families
- Judge expresses doubt about constitutionality of no-fly list