U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

1 

69–006 

" ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 115TH CONGRESS

1st Session 

REPORT

2017

115–271 

House Calendar No. 75 

IN THE MATTER OF ALLEGATIONS 

RELATING TO REPRESENTATIVE ROGER 

WILLIAMS 

R E P O R T 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

AUGUST 1, 2017.—Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSE:\Seals\Congress.#13
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS 

Susan W. Brooks, Indiana 

Chairwoman 

Patrick Meehan, Pennsylvania 

Trey Gowdy, South Carolina 

Kenny Marchant, Texas 

Leonard Lance, New Jersey 

Theodore E. Deutch, Florida 

Ranking Member 

Yvette D. Clarke, New York 

Jared Polis, Colorado 

Anthony Brown, Maryland 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
(III)

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. 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
(V) 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
1See Report and Findings of the Office of Congressional Ethics (Review No. 15–1202) (Appendix 1). 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
2 

2See 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). 3See generally House Ethics Manual (2008) (hereinafter Ethics Manual) at 186–88. 4 Id. at 234. 

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. 

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


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
3 

5 House Comm. on Ethics, In the Matter of Allegations Relating to Representative Phil Gingrey, 

113th Cong., 2nd Sess. 11–12 (2014) (hereinafter Gingrey). 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. 8 Ethics Manual at 237. 9 Id. 10 Id. 

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

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

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

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. 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
4 

11 18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams. 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. 

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

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 associVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:22 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR271.XXX HR271

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
5 

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. 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. 18 Exhibit 2 at 2 (Appendix 3). 19 Id. 20 Exhibit 3 at 1 (Appendix 3). 21 Exhibit 4 (Appendix 3); 18(a) Interview of NADA Official. 

ated 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

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
6 

22 18(a) Interview of NADA Official. 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 Id. 27 Id. 28 Id. 29 Id. 30 Exhibit 5 (Appendix 3). 31 18(a) Interview of Staffer A. 

rise to independent causes of action under state unfair deceptive 

practices statutes.22

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

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

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

Before these communications between the NADA Official and 

Representative Williams’ staff, Representative Williams had not 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
7 

32 18(a) Interview of Staffer B (‘‘[I]t was [Representative Williams’] first amendment that he 

had offered.’’). 33See, 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). 34 18(a) Interview of Staffer A. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Exhibit 6 at 1 (Appendix 3). 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 18(a) Interview of Staffer A. 41 Id. 42 18(a) Interview of NADA Official; 18(a) Interview of Staffer A. 

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

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

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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
8 

43 Exhibit 7 at 1 (Appendix 3). 44 Id. 45 Id. 46 Id. 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.’ ’’). 49 Id. at 1. 50Pub. L. No. 114–94, § 24109(b) (Dec. 4, 2015). 

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 smallbusiness 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 recordkeeping requirements, and penalties.46

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

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

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


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
9 

51 18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams. 52 Exhibit 8 at 2 (Appendix 3). 53 Exhibit 9 at 1 (Appendix 3). 54 July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 11 (Appendix 2). 55 Ethics Manual at 235. 56 Id. at 237. 

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. 

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 industrywide,’’ 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

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

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, 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
10 

57 Id. at 235–37. 58 Id. at 237. 59 July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 7 (Appendix 2). 60 Exhibit 7 (Appendix 3). 61 Id. 62See, e.g., 18(a) Interview of NADA Official. 63 Id. 64https://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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
11 

66 Id. 67 July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 11 (Appendix 2). 68 Ethics Manual at 237. 69 July 22, 2016 Joint Response at 11 (Appendix 2). 

Committee staff that he was unaware of the 2015 recalls when he 

introduced the Williams Amendment.66

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
12 

70 Berkley at 51 (citing Ethics Manual at 251). 71https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/us-dot-announces-fiat-chrysler-enforcement-action (last 

accessed July 27, 2017). 72See Ethics Manual at 27. 73Gingrey at 20–21 (citing Berkley at 55). 

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

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 selfdeal, 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. 

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

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 considVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:22 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR271.XXX HR271

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
13 

74With 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. 

ered 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 exerVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:22 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR271.XXX HR271

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
14 

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.’’). 

cise 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. 

• 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

• 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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
15 

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. 

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

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 exVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:22 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR271.XXX HR271

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
16 

81 18(a) Interview of Representative Roger Williams. 82 Id. 83See 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.’’). 

cluded 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

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. • 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. 

Thus, reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the Committee 

found that Representative Williams’ actions in sponsoring the WilVerDate Sep 11 2014 21:22 Aug 02, 2017 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR271.XXX HR271

srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
17 

liams 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 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
18 

84 Ethics Manual at 237. 85For the same reasons, the Committee did not find that Representative Williams violated 

House Rule XXIII, clauses 1 or 2. 

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. 

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. 

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. 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTS
19 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 26 here HR271.001
20 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 27 here HR271.002
21 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 28 here HR271.003
22 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 29 here HR271.004
23 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 30 here HR271.005
24 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 31 here HR271.006
25 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 32 here HR271.007
26 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 33 here HR271.008
27 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 34 here HR271.009
28 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 35 here HR271.010
29 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 36 here HR271.011
30 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 37 here HR271.012
31 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 38 here HR271.013
32 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 39 here HR271.014
33 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 40 here HR271.015
34 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 41 here HR271.016
35 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 42 here HR271.017
36 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 43 here HR271.018
37 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 44 here HR271.019
38 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 45 here HR271.020
39 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 46 here HR271.021
40 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 47 here HR271.022
41 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 48 here HR271.023
42 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 49 here HR271.024
43 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 50 here HR271.025
44 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 51 here HR271.026
45 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 52 here HR271.027
46 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 53 here HR271.028
47 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 54 here HR271.029
48 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 55 here HR271.030
49 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 56 here HR271.031
50 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 57 here HR271.032
51 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 58 here HR271.033
52 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 59 here HR271.034
53 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 60 here HR271.035
54 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 61 here HR271.036
55 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 62 here HR271.037
56 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 63 here HR271.038
57 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 64 here HR271.039
58 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 65 here HR271.040
59 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 66 here HR271.041
60 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 67 here HR271.042
61 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 68 here HR271.043
62 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 69 here HR271.044
63 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 70 here HR271.045
64 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 71 here HR271.046
65 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 72 here HR271.047
66 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 73 here HR271.048
67 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 74 here HR271.049
68 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 75 here HR271.050
69 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 76 here HR271.051
70 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 77 here HR271.052
71 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 78 here HR271.053
72 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 79 here HR271.054
73 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 80 here HR271.055
74 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 81 here HR271.056
75 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 82 here HR271.057
76 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 83 here HR271.058
77 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 84 here HR271.059
78 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 85 here HR271.060
79 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 86 here HR271.061
80 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 87 here HR271.062
81 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 88 here HR271.063
82 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 89 here HR271.064
83 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 90 here HR271.065
84 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 91 here HR271.066
85 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 92 here HR271.067
86 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 93 here HR271.068
87 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 94 here HR271.069
88 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 95 here HR271.070
89 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 96 here HR271.071
90 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 97 here HR271.072
91 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 98 here HR271.073
92 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 99 here HR271.074
93 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 100 here HR271.075
94 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 101 here HR271.076
95 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 102 here HR271.077
96 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 103 here HR271.078
97 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 104 here HR271.079
98 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 105 here HR271.080
99 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 106 here HR271.081
100 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 107 here HR271.082
101 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 108 here HR271.083
102 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 109 here HR271.084
103 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 110 here HR271.085
104 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 111 here HR271.086
105 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 112 here HR271.087
106 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 113 here HR271.088
107 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 114 here HR271.089
108 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 115 here HR271.090
109 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 116 here HR271.091
110 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 117 here HR271.092
111 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 118 here HR271.093
112 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 119 here HR271.094
113 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 120 here HR271.095
114 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 121 here HR271.096
115 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 122 here HR271.097
116 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 123 here HR271.098
117 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 124 here HR271.099
118 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 125 here HR271.100
119 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 126 here HR271.101
120 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 127 here HR271.102
121 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 128 here HR271.103
122 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 129 here HR271.104
123 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 130 here HR271.105
124 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 131 here HR271.106
125 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 132 here HR271.107
126 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 133 here HR271.108
127 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 134 here HR271.109
128 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 135 here HR271.110
129 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 136 here HR271.111
130 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 137 here HR271.112
131 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 138 here HR271.113
132 


srobinson on DSKBC5CHB2PROD with REPORTSInsert offset folio 139 here HR271.114