[House Report 115-271]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
House Calendar No. 75
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-271
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS
RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ROGER WILLIAMS
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
August 1, 2017.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
69-006 WASHINGTON: 2017
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
Susan W. Brooks, Indiana Theodore E. Deutch, Florida
Chairwoman Ranking Member
Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania Yvette D. Clarke, New York
Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Jared Polis, Colorado
Kenny Marchant, Texas Anthony Brown, Maryland
Leonard Lance, New Jersey Steve Cohen, Tennessee
Report Staff
Thomas A. Rust, Chief Counsel/Staff Director
Patrick M. McMullen, Director of Investigations
Megan H. Savage, Counsel to the Chairwoman
Daniel J. Taylor, Counsel to the Ranking Member
David W. Arrojo, Counsel
Molly N. McCarty, Investigator
Michael Koren, Investigative Clerk
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
----------
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
House of Representatives,
Committee on Ethics,
Washington, DC, August 1, 2017.
Hon. Karen L. Haas,
Clerk, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ms. Haas: Pursuant to clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b) of Rule
XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, we herewith
transmit the attached report, ``In the Matter of Allegations
Relating to Representative Roger Williams.''
Sincerely,
Susan W . Brooks,
Chairwoman.
Theodore E. Deutch,
Ranking Member.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................1
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND............................................2
III. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT...2
IV. BACKGROUND.......................................................3
A. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS' AUTO DEALERSHIP............ 4
B. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS' INVOLVEMENT WITH THE FAST
ACT AND THE WILLIAMS AMENDMENT..................... 5
V. FINDINGS.........................................................9
VI. CONCLUSION......................................................17
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)....................18
APPENDIX 1: REPORT AND FINDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL
ETHICS (REVIEW NO. 15-1202).................................... 19
APPENDIX 2: REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS' SUBMISSION.................. 63
APPENDIX 3: EXHIBITS TO COMMITTEE REPORT......................... 96
115th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session } { 115-271
======================================================================
IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ROGER WILLIAMS
_______
August 1, 2017.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be
printed
_______
Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, from the Committee on Ethics,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
In accordance with House Rule XI, clauses 3(a)(2) and 3(b),
the Committee on Ethics (Committee) hereby submits the
following Report to the House of Representatives:
I. INTRODUCTION
On May 13, 2016, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE)
transmitted to the Committee a Report and Findings (OCE's
Referral) regarding Representative Williams. OCE reviewed
allegations that Representative Williams may have improperly
taken official action on a matter in which he had a personal
financial interest when he offered an amendment to surface
transportation legislation known as the FAST Act during the
114th Congress. Representative Williams, who owns a Texas
automobile dealership, introduced his amendment (the Williams
Amendment) that sought to exempt dealerships from a provision
in the FAST Act that prohibited the renting or loaning of
vehicles subject to safety recalls.
OCE found that there was substantial reason to believe that
Representative Williams' personal financial interest in his
auto dealership may have--or could be perceived to have--
influenced his performance of official duties, in violation of
federal law and House rules.\1\ For that reason, OCE
recommended that the Committee further review these
allegations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Report and Findings of the Office of Congressional Ethics
(Review No. 15-1202) (Appendix 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee did further review the allegations. Following
its review, the Committee concluded that the evidence is
insufficient to warrant further action against Representative
Williams. While the Committee concluded that the Williams
Amendment could have affected Representative William's personal
financial interests, the totality of the circumstances
surrounding Representative Williams' actions did not create a
reasonable inference of improper conduct in this matter.
However, the Committee would like to emphasize its longstanding
guidance that a Member who is considering introducing
legislation or taking other official actions, beyond voting,
that could affect the Member's personal financial interests
should contact the Committee before doing so. In this case,
while the Committee would have advised Representative Williams
that he was not prohibited from introducing the Williams
Amendment, it might have made Representative Williams aware of
several potential issues, including the possibility that
members of the public, the press, and others could raise
questions about Representative Williams' actions. In fact, that
is precisely what happened.\2\ Consulting the Committee might
have had an additional benefit of interest to all Members, and
to the House as a whole: the avoidance of multiple, ultimately
unnecessary, ethics investigations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\See Exhibit 1 (November 18, 2015 report published by the Center
for Public Integrity and Texas Tribune) (Appendix 3); Letter from
Campaign Legal Center to OCE, November 23, 2015, available at http://
www.campaignlegalcenter.org/document/us-house-letter-clc-urging-house-
ethics-committee-and-office-congressional-ethics-review (last accessed
July 27, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's general recommendation to consult it aside,
the Committee found no violation of any law, rule, regulation,
or other standard of conduct in this case. Accordingly, the
Committee unanimously voted to dismiss this matter, publish
this Report, and take no further action. Upon publication of
this Report, the Committee considers the matter closed.
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
OCE undertook a preliminary review of this matter on
January 5, 2016. On February 4, 2016, OCE initiated a second-
phase review. On April 22, 2016, the OCE Board unanimously
voted to adopt the Findings and refer the matter to the
Committee with a recommendation for further review. The
Committee received OCE's referral on May 13, 2016.
The Committee reviewed materials provided by OCE. In
addition, the Committee issued voluntary requests for
information to Representative Williams and the Roger Williams
Auto Mall. Both voluntarily provided documents and other
information to the Committee. In total, the Committee reviewed
over 1,000 pages of materials. The Committee also interviewed
six witnesses, including Representative Williams, who fully
cooperated with the Committee's investigation.
On July 27, 2017, the Committee unanimously voted to
release this Report and take no further action with respect to
Representative Williams.
III. HOUSE RULES, LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND OTHER STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
General ethics principles prohibit a Member from using his
or her congressional position for personal gain.\3\ House Rule
III, clause 1, which specifically governs a Member's
performance of legislative duties, states that Members may not
vote on matters in which they have ``a direct personal or
pecuniary interest.''\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\See generally House Ethics Manual (2008) (hereinafter Ethics
Manual) at 186-88.
\4\Id. at 234.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two other rules govern a Member's official activity more
generally. First, House Rule XXIII, clause 3, states that ``a
Member . . . may not receive compensation and may not permit
compensation to accrue to the beneficial interest of such
individual from any source, the receipt of which would occur by
virtue of influence improperly exerted from the position of
such individual in Congress.'' As prior Committee guidance on
this rule explains, ``[i]f a Member seeks to act on a matter
where he might benefit as a Member of a large class, such
action does not require recusal. . . . By contrast, where a
Member's action would serve his own narrow financial interests,
the Member should refrain from acting.''\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to
Representative Phil Gingrey, 113th Cong., 2nd Sess. 11-12 (2014)
(hereinafter Gingrey).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, Section 5 of the Code of Ethics for Government
Service (Code of Ethics) states that ``[a]ny person in
Government services should . . . never accept for himself or
his family, favors or benefits under circumstances which might
be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the
performance of his governmental duties.'' Section 5 of the Code
of Ethics also prohibits a government official from
``discriminat[ing] unfairly by the dispensing of special favors
or privileges to anyone, whether for remuneration or not[.]''
As the Committee has advised, a quid pro quo is not necessary
to establish a violation of Section 5: ``the Committee has
consistently prohibited acting on matters in which a Member has
a financial interest precisely because the public would
construe such action as self-dealing, whether the Member
engaged in the action for that reason or not.''\6\ Thus,
``[t]he only question is whether `reasonable persons' `might
construe' [a Member's interest] as influencing the performance
of his government duties'' or whether ``the public might, and
reasonably could, view [the official action] as motivated by
his substantial [financial interest].''\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Id. at 18 (citing House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of
Allegations Relating to Representative Shelley Berkley, 112th Cong.,
2nd Sess. 55 (2012) (hereinafter Berkley)).
\7\Id. at 20-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In providing additional guidance regarding these standards,
the Ethics Manual notes that Member actions such as sponsoring
legislation ``entail a degree of advocacy above and beyond that
involved in voting.''\8\ Thus, a ``Member's decision on whether
to take any such action on a matter that may affect his or her
personal financial interest requires added circumspection.''\9\
Members considering taking official action other than voting on
a matter affecting their financial interests are advised to
``first contact the [Ethics] Committee for guidance.''\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Ethics Manual at 237.
\9\Id.
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 and 2, provide that a
Member ``shall behave at all times in a manner that shall
reflect creditably on the House,'' and ``shall adhere to the
spirit and the letter of the Rules of the House.''
IV. BACKGROUND
Representative Roger Williams is the Representative for
Texas' 25th District. He has held that position since 2013. In
the 114th Congress, he served on both the Financial Services
and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees.
A. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS' AUTO DEALERSHIP
Representative Williams is the lone shareholder of the JRW
Corporation, a private firm which, through its holdings in
various limited liability companies and partnerships, wholly
owns the Roger Williams Chrysler Dodge Jeep dealership (also
known as the Roger Williams Auto Mall, or ``Auto Mall''),
located in Weatherford, Texas. Before his election to Congress,
Representative Williams served as CEO of the dealership, which
his father originally founded in 1939. After Representative
Williams was elected to Congress, he ceded operational control
of the Auto Mall to family members, including his daughters,
who earn commissions from the dealership, and his wife, who
draws a salary for her work. Representative Williams
occasionally leads sales meetings at the Auto Mall on
weekends.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though Representative Williams is no longer involved in the
Auto Mall's daily operations, he has retained all of his
personal holdings in the business. According to information
Representative Williams provided to the Committee, the Auto
Mall generated approximately $63,000,000 in gross revenue in
2015. Representative Williams' November 2015 financial
disclosure reported that the JRW Corporation--the Auto Mall's
lone shareholder--was valued at between $25,000,001 and $50
million. Representative Williams' 2015 financial disclosure
form indicates that, while he has other investments in the form
of real estate holdings, individual stocks, and brokerage
accounts, the JRW Corporation's assets account for at least
half of his overall investment portfolio.
In addition to its sales, the Auto Mall services
automobiles and provides customers with two options for
replacing their vehicle while in service. First, the Auto Mall
facilitates car rentals with third-party rental companies,
which rent cars to Auto Mall customers at a reduced rate. Such
rentals are provided at either the customer's own expense, or
are fully covered by the auto manufacturer or an extended
warranty company. Where customer rental fees are covered by the
manufacturer or extended warranty company, the Auto Mall pays
the rental bill on the customer's behalf, adds the cost to the
customer's overall service bill, and later receives a
reimbursement from the manufacturer or extended warranty
company.
Second, the Auto Mall uses eight vehicles as loaner
vehicles offered to its customers.\12\ In 2015, when
Representative Williams offered the Williams Amendment, the
Auto Mall's loaner fleet consisted of six Model Year 2015
Chrysler 200s and two Model Year 2014 Chrysler 300s.\13\
Representative Williams told Committee staff that he believes
that the loaner program encourages customers to have their
vehicles serviced at the Auto Mall, though no analysis or
accounting has been performed to quantify any benefits that
inure to the dealership from the program.\14\ Neither the Auto
Mall nor any third party charges--or has ever charged--
customers to use these vehicles. Though the Auto Mall
occasionally receives de minimis reimbursements from the
manufacturer for costs associated with maintenance of its
loaner vehicles, the Auto Mall otherwise pays all vehicle
costs, including interest expenses related to financing.
According to the Auto Mall, the dealership generates no direct
profit from its loaner program. In fact, the program operated
at a net loss of $40,000 in 2015.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\July 22, 2016 Joint Response from Representative Roger Williams
and Williams Chrysler, Ltd. d/b/a Roger Williams Auto Mall (hereinafter
``July 22, 2016 Joint Response'') at 4 (Appendix 2).
\13\Id. at Appendix F to July 22, 2016 Joint Response.
\14\18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams.
\15\July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 4 (Appendix 2). This figure
would not include any ``loss leader'' benefits to the dealership, such
as attracting or retaining customers for repair and maintenance
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS' INVOLVEMENT WITH THE FAST ACT AND THE
WILLIAMS AMENDMENT
In January 2015, Representative Williams co-sponsored--and
the House passed--H.R. 22, a bill dealing with veterans
issues.\16\ As the bill was being considered in the Senate,
various provisions relating to the reauthorization of federal
surface transportation programs, including some tax measures,
were incorporated. Those provisions were added to the existing
House bill, rather than introduced as independent legislation,
in order to comply with the constitutional requirement that
revenue measures originate in the House.\17\ The modified bill,
which became known as the FAST Act, passed the Senate in July
2015 and then proceeded to the House for deliberation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/
cosponsors?q=%7B%22search
%22%3A%5B%22HR+22%22%5D%7D&r=2&overview=closed#tabs (last accessed July
27, 2017).
\17\U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 7, cl. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Senate bill included a provision that prohibited any
``rental company'' from renting its customers any vehicle that
was the subject of any open safety recall, and required that
vehicle to be removed from service.\18\ The legislation defined
``rental company'' as any entity that ``(A) is engaged in the
business of renting covered rental vehicles; and (B) uses for
rental purposes a motor vehicle fleet of 5 or more covered
rental vehicles.''\19\ A rental company that failed to ground a
recalled vehicle would face a penalty of up to $21,000 for each
individual motor vehicle safety violation, up to a maximum
penalty of $105 million for a series of violations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Exhibit 2 at 2 (Appendix 3).
\19\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), an
advocacy group for franchised automobile and truck dealerships,
opposed the FAST Act. Even though the legislation lacked any
explicit reference to auto dealers or their loaner fleets, NADA
feared that the bill's definition of a ``rental company'' might
be read to include dealerships with loaner car programs, which
would in turn subject dealers to the ``provision that says that
rental cars that are on a recall list must be grounded (not
driven or rented).''\20\ This concern was magnified by the lack
of any limit on the scope or nature of a recall required to
trigger compliance with the Act; thus, according to the NADA,
dealers might be required to ground vehicles for minor defects
that posed no immediate safety concern, such as a missing
airbag warning sticker or an incorrect phone number in the car
owner's manual.\21\ Moreover, NADA feared that dealers might
face additional liability beyond the direct penalties imposed
by the FAST Act, as any violations of that (federal) law could
give rise to independent causes of action under state unfair
deceptive practices statutes.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Exhibit 3 at 1 (Appendix 3).
\21\Exhibit 4 (Appendix 3); 18(a) Interview of NADA Official.
\22\18(a) Interview of NADA Official.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NADA's Vice President for Legislative Affairs (NADA
Official) explained to Committee staff his personal basis for
believing that the FAST Act might apply to dealership loaner
fleets, despite the lack of explicit language to that effect in
the bill. He stated that dealerships typically require
customers who borrow loaner vehicles to sign a ``rental
agreement,'' even where no money is paid for the vehicle's
use.\23\ Based on the title of that standard form, the NADA
Official believed that, in litigation, a court could conclude
that a loaner vehicle was ``part of a rental fleet,'' and thus
any vehicle subject to any recall could be grounded.\24\
However, the NADA Official told Committee staff that it was
nonetheless ``unclear to [him] if loaner vehicles are actually
within the scope of the legislation,'' given that ``loaner
vehicles'' were, by definition, loaned out and not rented.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Id.
\24\Id.
\25\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After a failed attempt to introduce an amendment to the
bill in the Senate, NADA began seeking sponsors for a House
amendment to expressly limit the FAST Act's application to
automobile dealers. Representative Williams immediately emerged
as a likely candidate. NADA had previously worked with
Representative Williams on various financial services bills
relating to dealer-assisted financing, and the NADA Official
told Committee staff that he would ``periodically'' contact
Representative Williams' office on legislation before the
Financial Services Committee.\26\ However, such contact was
sporadic; the NADA Official stated that he ``could go 6 months
without talking to his office.''\27\ To the NADA Official,
Representative Williams was a logical spokesperson to support a
FAST Act amendment: as a car dealer who ``knows the business of
automotive retailing,'' he would be able to immediately discern
the bill's negative impact on dealers.\28\ The NADA Official
also described Representative Williams as a ``very hard
worker'' who would be able to manage the potential time
constraints that would follow from amendment sponsorship.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Id.
\27\Id.
\28\Id.
\29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 2015, the NADA Official emailed
Representative Williams' Legislative Director, explaining that
auto dealers ``potentially have a major problem'' with the FAST
Act and asking whether the Congressman would consider
sponsoring a legislative fix.\30\ Representative Williams'
Legislative Director promptly emailed his Deputy Chief of Staff
and asked him to contact the NADA Official to discuss a
potential amendment. The NADA Official briefed Representative
Williams' Deputy Chief of Staff soon thereafter, explaining how
dealerships could be affected by the FAST Act and how the
amendment would exclude dealers and loaner fleets from the
regulation.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\Exhibit 5 (Appendix 3).
\31\18(a) Interview of Staffer A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before these communications between the NADA Official and
Representative Williams' staff, Representative Williams had not
contemplated introducing any amendments to the FAST Act.\32\
Nor was Representative Williams or anyone on his staff aware
that the FAST Act might be construed to apply to loaner
vehicles offered by automobile dealerships to their
customers.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\18(a) Interview of Staffer B (``[I]t was [Representative
Williams'] first amendment that he had offered.'').
\33\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of Staffer A (NADA Official first
explained to staffer that FAST Act might have applied to vehicles that
car dealers loaned to customers; staffer did no independent research
into legislation before that time).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Later in the afternoon of October 29, the Deputy Chief of
Staff met with Representative Williams to discuss both the
amendment and his earlier conversation with the NADA Official.
The Deputy Chief of Staff told Representative Williams that
NADA wanted his help on the amendment because he was ``familiar
with automobile dealerships.''\34\ Representative Williams
agreed to sponsor the amendment, telling his Deputy Chief of
Staff that it ``[s]ounds like a no-brainer.''\35\ The Deputy
Chief of Staff stated that, in the FAST Act, Representative
Williams saw a potential ``customer service issue'' in dealers
being forced to ground vehicles over recall issues that did not
pose immediate safety threats, and thus thought an amendment
was important so that ``dealers weren't hurt [and] that small
businesses weren't hurt by this regulation.''\36\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\18(a) Interview of Staffer A.
\35\Id.
\36\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At around the same time, the NADA Official sent the Deputy
Chief of Staff proposed amendment language.\37\ The one-word
amendment sought to modify the FAST Act's definition of a
covered ``rental company,'' by inserting the word ``primarily''
before the phrase ``engaged in the business of renting covered
rental vehicles.''\38\ The amendment's stated effect was to
exempt auto dealers, whose primary business is not to rent
vehicles, from the recall provision contained in the FAST
Act.\39\ When Committee staff asked the Deputy Chief of Staff
whether he conducted any independent analysis at that time to
determine whether the FAST Act applied to dealerships or to
loaner vehicles, he explained that he ``just read the [bill]
language and the language seemed pretty clear.''\40\ He also
stated that he did not consider whether the exchange of payment
for a loaned or rented vehicle would have impacted whether the
FAST Act applied.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\Exhibit 6 at 1 (Appendix 3).
\38\Id.
\39\Id.
\40\18(a) Interview of Staffer A.
\41\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Williams' Deputy Chief of Staff sent the
amendment language as drafted by the NADA Official to the House
Office of the Legislative Counsel, which reviewed the text to
ensure that it conformed to the technical requirements needed
for the amendment to be accepted by the Rules Committee and
made in order.\42\ Neither Representative Williams' staff nor
the Office of the Legislative Counsel made any substantive
changes to the amendment language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\18(a) Interview of NADA Official; 18(a) Interview of Staffer A.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Deputy Chief of Staff was the ``point person'' on
Representative Williams' staff for the amendment. The NADA
Official provided him and another staffer with background
materials, including draft talking points, a list of ``minor''
safety recalls that would potentially result in vehicles being
grounded under the unamended FAST Act, and a draft floor speech
for the Congressman to deliver in support of the amendment.
On November 4, 2015, the Williams Amendment proceeded to
the House floor for consideration. During deliberations on the
amendment, Representative Williams delivered the floor speech;
neither Representative Williams nor his staff appear to have
made any substantive changes to its NADA-drafted language.
Representative Williams began the speech by identifying himself
as a ``second-generation auto dealer'' who had been in the
dealership industry much of his life and knew it well.\43\ The
speech also made clear that the Williams Amendment sought to
exclude car dealerships from the FAST Act's ambit, stating:
``[t]he definition in the underlying bill . . . is so broad
that it sweeps up dealers who offer loaner vehicles or rentals
as a convenience for their customers.''\44\ Representative
Williams noted that the bill ``could make it impractical for
small-business dealers to provide loaner or rental cars to
their customers because it mandates vehicles be grounded for
minor compliance matters with a minimal impact on safety, and
that is not what Congress' intent is or should be.''\45\ He
also highlighted potential costs that the FAST Act, if
unamended, would impose on dealerships, including new
government inspections, additional record-keeping requirements,
and penalties.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\Exhibit 7 at 1 (Appendix 3).
\44\Id.
\45\Id.
\46\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No co-sponsors signed onto the Williams Amendment. However,
Representative Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania spoke briefly in the
amendment's favor. Representative Kelly, who shared his own
perspective as the owner of ``a third-generation automobile
business'' that ``sold thousands of cars,'' stated that the
FAST Act would disproportionately harm auto dealers.\47\ He
also suggested that the Act could pose a relative benefit to
rental car companies, who might capitalize on a dealer's loaner
vehicles being grounded by renting non-recalled vehicles to
that dealer's customers.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\Exhibit 7 at 2 (Appendix 3).
\48\Id. (``And what will [rental companies] do with us when we take
a car off the road'' They will say: `Send your customers to us and we
will rent them a car.''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Jan Schakowsky and former Representative
Lois Capps spoke in opposition to the Williams Amendment, with
the latter apparently sharing in the belief that the FAST Act
would have applied to loaner vehicles offered by dealerships.
Representative Capps stated that the Williams amendment would
``needlessly exempt auto dealers from critical vehicle safety
requirements,'' and she urged the House to oppose the amendment
``to ensure all consumers can be confident that their rental
car or their loaner car is safe to drive, regardless of whether
they get it from a rental company or a dealership.''\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\Id. at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Amendment passed the House by voice vote on
November 4, 2015. The amendment, though it was included in the
legislation sent to conference committee, was ultimately struck
in conference. In its place, the enacted legislation contained
different language that had a similar effect of exempting any
``rental company'' with fewer than 35 vehicles from the recall-
related requirements.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\Pub. L. No. 114-94, Sec. 24109(b) (Dec. 4, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no evidence that, prior to Representative
Williams' introduction of the Williams Amendment,
Representative Williams or his staff ever discussed, with each
other or anyone else, whether the FAST Act or the Williams
Amendment would have any impact on the Auto Mall or
Representative Williams' financial interest in it. Indeed,
Representative Williams told Committee staff that it never
occurred to him that his sponsorship of the Amendment might
benefit him or his dealership, or otherwise create a conflict
of interest.\51\ According to Representative Williams, the
subject of his financial interest in the Auto Mall did not
arise until a reporter from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram
emailed Representative Williams' Communications Director on
November 18, 2015 about a story on the Williams Amendment that
previously appeared in the Texas Tribune. Specifically, the
reporter asked whether Representative Williams ``agree[d] that
the ethics manual calls on him to contact the Ethics Committee
before taking an action such as introducing his transportation
bill amendment affecting car dealers who loan or rent vehicles
subject to recall notices.''\52\ The reporter also asked
whether Representative Williams consulted the Committee about
the Williams Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams.
\52\Exhibit 8 at 2 (Appendix 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On November 24, 2015, Representative Williams' office
issued a press release in response to the reporter's inquiry.
The press release described the Williams Amendment as a ``one
word, technical amendment that would affect thousands of auto
dealers industry-wide,'' which Representative Williams offered
because ``dealers should not be forced to ground vehicles for a
misprint or a peeled sticker.'' The press release also
acknowledged Representative Williams' industry knowledge, and
posed a rhetorical question: ``Should . . . Members excuse
themselves from engaging in debate that affects the industries
or sectors they know best? In my opinion, absolutely not.''\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Exhibit 9 at 1 (Appendix 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Williams told the Committee that neither he
nor any member of his staff contacted the Committee prior to
his introduction of, or vote on, the Williams Amendment,
because ``[h]e had no indication that what he was doing could
have possibly been perceived as unethical.''\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 11 (Appendix 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. FINDINGS
As previously noted, House Rule III, clause 1, states that
Members are expected to vote on all legislation pending before
the House, except where the Member has ``a direct personal or
pecuniary interest'' that would be affected by the legislation.
The Committee has historically interpreted this limitation to
apply only where the legislation affects a specific company or
asset in which the Member holds a financial interest.\55\ While
the Committee has advised Members ``that it would be
inappropriate for them to vote or to introduce legislation
directly affecting significant and uniquely held financial
interests,''\56\ a Member is not restricted from voting on
legislation that affects a broad class of companies or assets,
where the Member merely holds an interest in one of those.\57\
Both the FAST Act and the Williams Amendment would have
affected the broad class of approximately 16,000 auto dealers
nationwide, and not merely the automobile dealership owned by
Representative Williams. Thus, Representative Williams'
ownership stake in the Auto Mall did not preclude him from
voting on either the Act or his Amendment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\Ethics Manual at 235.
\56\Id. at 237.
\57\Id. at 235-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsorship of legislation raises different issues, and
Members are held to a different standard with respect to such
activity. Where sponsorship of a bill or amendment would affect
a Member's own financial interests, the ``class'' analysis
still applies. However, the Committee has advised that Members
should exercise ``added circumspection'' and contact the
Committee for guidance in such circumstances.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\Id. at 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In submissions to the Committee through his counsel,
Representative Williams argues that he could not have had a
personal or pecuniary interest in sponsoring the Williams
Amendment, because the Auto Mall only offers loaner vehicles to
its customers, and ``the language of [the Williams Amendment]
applies only to `rental vehicles'.''\59\ This argument,
however, contradicts Representative Williams' apparent
understanding of the FAST Act and his amendment when it was
adopted by the House: he stated in his own remarks on the House
floor that loaner vehicles would have been regulated by the
FAST Act, and that the amendment sought to exclude dealership
loaner fleets from that regulation.\60\ Another Member's speech
in opposition to the Williams Amendment,\61\ as well as the
NADA Official's statements to Committee staff and materials he
provided to Representative Williams' staff before the amendment
was adopted,\62\ reflect a similar contemporaneous
understanding that the bill and amendment would likely have
resulted in regulation of dealership loaner vehicles. The NADA
Official also explained that the ``rental agreement'' forms
commonly used by dealerships in their loaner programs might
lead a court, in litigation, to conclude that loaner vehicles
were ``part of a rental fleet'' and potentially subject to the
FAST Act.\63\ The Auto Mall used such forms when providing
loaner services to its customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 7 (Appendix 2).
\60\Exhibit 7 (Appendix 3).
\61\Id.
\62\See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of NADA Official.
\63\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, at the time the Williams Amendment was
introduced, at least 11 million Fiat Chrysler cars and trucks--
including Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram vehicles--were on a
recall list following a 2015 NHTSA enforcement action.\64\ The
eight vehicles that comprised the Auto Mall's loaner fleet were
all subject to that recall, and may have been required to be
grounded under the FAST Act, if loaner vehicles were indeed
within the Act's scope. Representative Williams told Committee
staff that, while he knew generally that the Auto Mall's loaner
fleet was comprised of Chrysler vehicles, he was unaware of
which specific vehicles were offered to customers as part of
that service.\65\ Representative Williams also told Committee
staff that he was unaware of the 2015 recalls when he
introduced the Williams Amendment.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-announces-fiat-
chrysler-enforcement-action (last accessed July 27, 2017).
\65\18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams.
\66\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee found no evidence that Representative
Williams or anyone on his staff ever contacted the Committee or
asked whether House rules permitted his sponsorship of the
amendment. Indeed, Representative Williams admitted that
neither he nor any member of his staff contacted the Committee
prior to his introduction of, or vote on, the Williams
Amendment, but stated that they did not do so because ``[h]e
had no indication that what he was doing could have possibly
been perceived as unethical.''\67\ Representative Williams has
explained that it did not occur to him that he might have a
conflict of interest, or that he had any need to contact the
Committee for guidance, because he did not consider whether his
amendment would have had any impact on his business or
financial interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 11 (Appendix 2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Committee's guidance recognizes, sponsorship of
bills and amendments is an official action that goes a step
beyond voting, one that ``may implicate the rules and standards
. . . that prohibit the use of one's official position for
personal gain,''\68\ including House Rule XXIII, clause 3, and
Section 5 of the Code of Ethics. Importantly, those rules
distinguish between actual conflicts of interest--when a Member
is actually motivated by personal financial gain instead of his
duty to his constituents--and apparent conflicts of interest,
or situations in which a reasonable person might conclude that
a Member has abused the public trust for personal gain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\68\Ethics Manual at 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's determination as to whether Representative
Williams violated any rule, law, regulation, or other
applicable standard of conduct by sponsoring the Williams
Amendment turned on the answers to two questions. First, did
Representative Williams have an actual conflict of interest,
i.e., did he introduce the Williams Amendment to financially
benefit himself? Second, did Representative Williams have an
apparent conflict of interest, i.e., might a reasonable person
have concluded that Representative Williams took an official
action to enrich himself?
As for the first question, Representative Williams
maintains that ``[h]e did not offer the amendment in order to
benefit the Dealership,''\69\ and the Committee found no
evidence to contradict this assertion. As Representative
Williams' staff and the NADA Official explained, Representative
Williams did not conceive of or draft the Williams Amendment:
rather, the idea was suggested--and the amendment authored--by
an individual who advocated on behalf of automobile dealers
nationwide. Nor did Representative Williams or anyone on his
staff discuss any personal or financial interest in the Auto
Mall in connection with the decision to sponsor the Williams
Amendment. Moreover, when Representative Williams introduced
and spoke on his amendment on the House floor, he openly
disclosed his status as a car dealer, as well as auto dealers'
broad interest in excluding the FAST Act from applying to their
loaner fleets. Representative Williams also reported his
investment in the Auto Mall (via the JRW Corporation) on his
2015 financial disclosure form. The Committee has noted that
while public disclosure of a potential conflict does not
completely insulate a Member from possible violations of the
conflict of interest rules, it is the ``preferred method of
regulating possible conflicts of interest.''\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 11 (Appendix 2).
\70\Berkley at 51 (citing Ethics Manual at 251).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though the Committee found no evidence that the Williams
Amendment would have allowed the Auto Mall to generate a profit
from its loaner program, the unamended FAST Act could have had
a negative financial impact on the business, for example, by
increasing the dealership's liability and disrupting its loaner
program. That disruption was more than a theoretical
possibility: at the time the Williams Amendment was introduced,
at least 11 million Fiat Chrysler cars and trucks--including
Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, and Ram vehicles--were on a recall list
following a 2015 NHTSA enforcement action.\71\ The eight
vehicles that comprised the Auto Mall's loaner fleet were all
subject to that recall, and may have been required to be
grounded under the pre-amendment FAST Act, if loaner vehicles
were indeed within the Act's scope. Yet any resulting financial
impact on the Auto Mall would appear to be minimal, and not
enough to establish an actual motive to self-deal, particularly
in light of other circumstances surrounding Representative
Williams' sponsorship of the amendment--notably, NADA having
drafted the amendment text and asking Representative Williams
to introduce it on behalf of car dealers nationwide. Moreover,
any benefit resulting to automobile dealers as a result of the
amendment would have similarly applied to any dealerships that
offer loaner vehicles to their customers. Thus, Representative
Williams' own explanations, his staff's explanations, and the
totality of the circumstances all indicate that he did not
sponsor the Williams Amendment to benefit himself, and thus
there was no actual conflict of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-announces-fiat-
chrysler-enforcement-action (last accessed July 27, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the second question, the Committee has long
cautioned Members to ``avoid situations in which even an
inference might be drawn'' that a Member took an official
action to benefit their own financial interests.\72\ With
respect to Section 5 of the Code of Ethics, ``the Committee has
consistently prohibited acting on matters in which a Member has
a financial interest precisely because the public would
construe such action as self-dealing, whether the Member
engaged in the action for that reason or not'' (emphasis
added). Under this standard, ``[t]he only question is whether
`reasonable persons' `might construe' [a Member's interest] as
influencing the performance of his government duties'' or
whether ``the public might, and reasonably could, view [the
official action] as motivated by his substantial [financial
interest].''\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\See Ethics Manual at 27.
\73\Gingrey at 20-21 (citing Berkley at 55).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In determining whether a reasonable person might conclude
that a Member took an official action for personal financial
gain, the Committee has typically considered the totality of
the circumstances in each case. As explained in further detail
below, the Committee analyzed the totality of the circumstances
in this case, and determined that a reasonable person would not
conclude that Representative Williams introduced the Williams
Amendment to enrich himself or the Auto Mall. In doing so, the
Committee considered Representative Williams' particular
financial interest that could have been affected by the
Williams Amendment, as well as the effect that the amendment
could have on that interest. On that basis, the Committee
concluded that Representative Williams took an official action,
beyond voting on legislation, which could have affected his
personal financial interests. Thus, he should have contacted
the Committee for guidance before taking the action. However,
in considering the totality of the circumstances, the Committee
concluded that Representative Williams' sponsorship of the
Williams Amendment did not create a reasonable inference that
Representative Williams used his official position for personal
gain.
In reaching this conclusion, the Committee considered
several factors:
(1) What is the nature of Representative Williams'
financial interest in the Auto Mall? The Committee's historical
guidance on this question highlights several factors relevant
to evaluating the nature of Representative Williams' financial
interest in the Auto Mall. This is not an exhaustive list of
relevant factors, nor is any individual factor is dispositive.
What is the dollar value of Representative
Williams' financial interest in the Auto Mall?
Representative Williams' November 2015 financial
disclosure reported that the JRW Corporation--the Auto
Mall's lone shareholder--was valued at between
$25,000,001 and $50 million.
What is the relative value of the investment
compared to the value of the Member's entire investment
portfolio? While Representative Williams has other
investments in the form of real estate holdings,
individual stocks, and brokerage accounts, information
listed on Representative Williams' 2015 financial
disclosure form indicates that the JRW Corporation's
assets appear to account for at least half of his
overall asset portfolio.
Was the investment public or private? The
investment is private. Representative Williams is the
lone shareholder of the JRW Corporation, which, through
its holdings in various limited liability companies and
partnerships, wholly owns the Auto Mall.
Is the interest direct or imputed? Members
may have direct, personal financial stakes in an
investment, entity or business outcome. In this case,
Representative Williams, as the Auto Mall's lone
shareholder, has a direct business interest in the Auto
Mall.
Representative Williams also appears to have imputed
interests in the Auto Mall. Representative Williams told
Committee staff that his wife earns a monthly salary from the
Auto Mall of about $5,000. Income received by a spouse usually
accrues, albeit indirectly, to a Member's interest. Certain
House rules and statutory provisions impute to the Member
certain benefits that are received by a spouse, and questions
may arise as to whether a Member is improperly benefiting as a
result of the spouse's activities.\74\ House Rule XXIII, clause
3, prohibits a Member from receiving any compensation, or
allowing any compensation to accrue to the Member's beneficial
interest, from any source as a result of an improper exercise
of official influence. Additionally, Section 5 of the Code of
Ethics admonishes officials never to accept benefits for
themselves or their families ``under circumstances which might
be construed by reasonable persons as influencing the
performance'' of official duties. Nonetheless, neither of these
provisions is triggered by a spouse's activities unless the
Member has improperly exerted influence or performed official
acts either in order to obtain compensation for, or as a result
of compensation to, the spouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\With respect to the activities and interests of children who
are not dependents, the Committee has advised that any resulting
benefits do not typically impute to the Member.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is the interest aligned with the interests
of constituents? A Member's financial interest may
signify a personal investment in the district's
financial well-being. However, entities in which a
Member is invested may also have their own priorities,
which can diverge from those of constituents,
especially if the district is also home to competitors.
The Committee has advised that the best way to address
any such divergence is to serve all constituents
equally. Representative Williams told Committee staff
that the Auto Mall, which does not operate in his
congressional district, probably does not employ any
constituents. However, the Williams Amendment would
have operated similarly on all of the automobile
dealerships in Representative Williams' district and
excluded their loaner programs from the provisions of
the FAST Act. Thus, Representative Williams' interests
were at least aligned with those of constituents who
owned or worked at other dealerships in his district.
(2) What is the nature of the Member's official action? The
following factors guided the Committee's evaluation of the
nature of Representative Williams' official action.
Was the Member's official action consistent
with treatment of others who requested legislative
assistance? The idea for the Williams Amendment
originated squarely with NADA: Representative Williams'
staff explained that they were approached by NADA and
told that the underlying bill could pose problems for
auto dealers. Representative Williams wanted to be
helpful and, based on his perspective as an auto
dealer, put forth what he understood to be a basic,
common sense legislative fix. The NADA Official
explained that he has previously worked with the
Congressman on other legislative issues and that he
meets with Representative Williams' office staff
``periodically,'' though he ``could go 6 months without
talking to his office.''\75\ Though the Committee could
not precisely quantify how NADA's access compared to
that of other groups, Representative Williams told
Committee staff that, outside of the Williams
Amendment, he could not recall ever introducing a bill
or amendment based on a request from a lobbying group
or trade association.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\18(a) Interview of NADA Official.
\76\18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams (``Q: [NADA]
asked you to introduce that amendment and you agreed . . . Have you
ever followed that process with any other piece of legislation where a
lobbying group or a trade association has asked you to introduce a bill
and you've done that, or an amendment? A: Not that I can recall.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did other Members of Congress participate?
Representative Williams was the Williams' Amendment's
lone sponsor. One other Member, Representative Kelly,
spoke in favor of the amendment on the floor. The House
unanimously adopted the Williams Amendment by voice
vote, although two Members did speak in opposition to
it.
What public oversight was applied? The
official action was public. The Williams Amendment was
introduced in the House on November 4, 2015, debated
publicly, and approved by a voice vote by full House.
During his floor speech on the amendment,
Representative Williams disclosed that he was a car
dealer, as well as his belief that, without his
proposal, it would be impractical for auto dealers like
himself to offer loaner programs. Representative
Williams' investment in the Auto Mall was also reported
on his financial disclosure forms, and was thus a
matter of public knowledge.
What is the potential effect the proposed
activity would have on the official's financial
interest? It is not clear what the direct effect of the
Williams Amendment would have been on the Auto Mall.
However, the amendment may have had some ancillary
impact on Representative Williams' business.
Representative Williams told Committee staff that he
believes that the loaner program encourages customers
to have their vehicles serviced at the Auto Mall.\77\
It is unclear what effect the FAST Act, if unamended,
might have had on the Auto Mall's own loaner fleet.
Representative Williams testified that the Auto Mall
already grounds loaner cars that are subject to a
recall, depending on the severity of the safety issue
implicated.\78\ Yet it is conceivable that, without the
Williams Amendment, the FAST Act would have forced more
loaner vehicles to be grounded: Representative Williams
said in his floor speech that the bill might have
required cars to be grounded for ``such minor
compliance matters as an airbag warning sticker that
might peel off.''\79\ In that same speech,
Representative Williams also said the FAST Act would
have made it ``impractical'' for dealers to maintain a
loaner program.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\77\Id.
\78\Id. (``[I]t depends on the issue. I mean, if it's a serious
issue where it could cause death of injury, we're not going to let that
car out, you know. But if it's a situation where the serial number is
wrong on something or maybe the radio doesn't work or whatever, we
would loan that car out.'').
\79\Exhibit 7 at 1 (Appendix 3).
\80\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further, the FAST Act could have exposed the Auto
Mall to additional legal liability. Under general tort
law, a dealership could be sued if a customer driving a
recalled loaner vehicle became injured due to a safety
issue relating to the recall. However, the NADA
Official explained that under the unamended FAST Act,
dealers might have faced additional lawsuits under
state unfair deceptive practices statutes, because a
violation of federal law would permit a cause of action
under those statutes, and the FAST Act would have
penalized dealers for renting or loaning recalled cars
as a matter of federal law--even if the vehicle did not
experience any mechanical problems and the driver did
not suffer any personal injury. The Auto Mall would
have potentially borne this risk, particularly since
all eight of the loaner vehicles that the Auto Mall
offered to customers in 2015 would have been covered by
an open safety recall, and the Williams Amendment would
have directly excluded dealerships from any such
additional liability imposed by the FAST Act.
It is unclear what costs would have resulted to the
Auto Mall from grounding any loaner vehicles subject to
recall, since the auto manufacturer would have covered
all repair or remediation costs associated with the
recall. However, Representative Williams told Committee
staff that, if the Auto Mall's loaner program were shut
down and had no loaner cars to offer to customers, it
would likely pay for its customers to rent a vehicle
from an outside rental car company.\81\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given all of this, Representative Williams may have
had some financial interest in excluding his own
dealership from the FAST Act, and should have
recognized that possibility. However, considering the
totality of the circumstances, any such interest was
not sufficient to establish an impermissible conflict
of interest in this case. The Auto Mall does not earn a
direct profit from offering loaner vehicles or
facilitating rentals to its customers. Though the Auto
Mall receives occasional reimbursements from
manufacturers in connection with its loaner vehicles,
the direct, tangible costs to the dealership for
providing that service appear to exceed any revenues
generated from such service. And while the loaner
program may have resulted in ancillary, indirect
benefits to the Auto Mall in the form of customer
retention and goodwill, Representative Williams told
Committee staff that the Auto Mall has not performed
any analysis or accounting to quantify any possible
benefits obtained from the loaner program.\82\
Moreover, the Committee found no evidence that the
Williams Amendment would have materially increased the
Auto Mall's revenues or profits, or made Representative
Williams' investment in the Auto Mall more valuable.
Thus, the Committee found the amendment's potential
impact on Representative Williams' financial interest
in the Auto Mall to be minimal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\82\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does the proposed official action affect a
sector or other large class of entities or narrowly
affect a single or smaller group of entities in which
the Member retains a financial interest? As previously
noted, class analysis applies to both voting on and
sponsoring legislation and amendments, such as the
Williams Amendment.\83\ That amendment affected a large
class of individuals--all auto dealers nationwide--and
did not singularly affect the Auto Mall to a different
degree than any other dealership. Moreover, NADA, which
represents all automobile dealers, drafted the
amendment and proposed to Representative Williams that
he sponsor it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\See Ethics Manual at 237 (``The Committee . . . has
occasionally advised Members, in private advisory opinions, that it
would be inappropriate for them to vote or to introduce legislation
directly affecting significant and uniquely held financial interests.
At times a question arises as to whether the class to which a Member
belongs with regard to a piece of legislation--such as, for example,
the class of owners of a particular area of land that would be acquired
by the government under the legislation--is sufficiently large to
warrant the Member voting under the authorities set out above.''); see
also Gingrey at 11 (As prior Committee guidance on Rule XXIII explains,
``[i]f a Member seeks to act on a matter where he might benefit as a
Member of large class, such action does not require recusal. . . . By
contrast, where a Member's action would serve his own narrow financial
interests, the Member should refrain from acting.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the
Committee found that Representative Williams' actions in
sponsoring the Williams Amendment did not create a reasonable
inference of improper conduct. While Representative Williams
may have had some personal financial interest in the adoption
of his amendment, the nature of any such interest was
speculative and hypothetical, because both the overall business
benefit of the loaner program and the impact of the FAST Act on
that program are unclear, if not impossible to quantify.
Representative Williams neither conceived of nor drafted the
amendment, which is further evidence that he did not introduce
the Williams Amendment to benefit himself or any personal
financial interest in the Auto Mall. Representative Williams
also openly disclosed his status as an auto dealer when
speaking about the amendment on the House floor. Furthermore,
the Williams Amendment did not uniquely benefit the Auto Mall:
to the extent Representative Williams or the Auto Mall may have
benefited from the amendment, they did so as a member of a
class of auto dealers. Indeed, to the extent that the amendment
benefitted the Auto Mall, it also would have benefitted any
competitors who also offered loaner programs. Finally, while
the amendment did impact a business in which Representative
Williams has a substantial financial interest, the Auto Mall
does not earn a direct profit from offering loaner vehicles or
facilitating rentals to its customers. Thus, the legislation
would not have resulted in a material monetary gain to
Representative Williams, and a reasonable person would not
conclude that Representative Williams sponsored the Williams
Amendment to benefit himself.
VI. CONCLUSION
Although Representative Williams' sponsorship of the
Williams Amendment did not violate any law or House Rule, the
Committee cautions all Members that this is an area where
mistakes can be made. The Committee accepts Representative
Williams' statement that he never thought that his sponsorship
of the Williams Amendment posed a conflict of interest. Yet as
Representative Williams stated in his own floor speech on the
amendment, the unamended FAST Act would have negatively
impacted, or even rendered impractical, auto dealers' loaner
programs--a service that the Auto Mall offered and resulted in
a modest, albeit intangible, business benefit. In light of
these circumstances, Representative Williams should have
contacted the Committee for guidance, and to identify in
advance any potential limitations on his ability to offer and
support the Williams Amendment, in order to avoid any inference
of improper action. Had he done so, the Committee would have
told him that, based on the totality of the circumstances, he
was not barred from sponsoring the Williams Amendment. However,
the Committee would have also cautioned Representative Williams
that some members of the public might, on first impression and
without the benefit of the full picture the Committee's
investigation ultimately developed, question whether his
actions could be conflicted, and that he should take care to
avoid creating any impression that he was sponsoring the
amendment to benefit himself or his business.
The recommendation that Members contact the Committee in
these circumstances is not new, and all Members should be aware
of it: the Ethics Manual has long stated that whenever a Member
is considering taking any action on a matter that could impact
the Member's own financial interest, and involves a degree of
advocacy above and beyond that involved in voting, that Member
should first ask the Committee for guidance.\84\ The Committee
encourages all Members who are considering sponsoring
legislation or an amendment to contact the Committee if the
legislation may personally impact them, and to exercise caution
to avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\Ethics Manual at 237.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While Representative Williams was not required to contact
the Committee before sponsoring the Williams Amendment, this
matter illustrates why the Ethics Manual states that Members
``should'' do so: Representative Williams could have benefitted
from the Committee's perspective, and may have avoided any
appearance of a conflict of interest, as well as separate
investigations by OCE and the Committee. Nonetheless, the
Committee ultimately found that Representative Williams'
actions did not violate the law or House Rules regarding
conflicts of interest and use of one's official position for
personal financial gain.\85\ Accordingly, the Committee has
determined to take no further action in this matter, and upon
publication of this Report, considers the matter closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\85\For the same reasons, the Committee did not find that
Representative Williams violated House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 or 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. STATEMENT UNDER HOUSE RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(C)
The Committee made no special oversight findings in this
Report. No budget statement is submitted. No funding is
authorized by any measure in this Report.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]