WASHINGTON – As congressional investigators probe whether Rep. Roger Williams violated conflict-of-interest regulations, the Texas Republican acknowledged in a recently released document that he did not completely follow ethics guidance that could have kept him out of the mess.

Williams is under fire for proposing an amendment last year that would have exempted auto dealers from new safety regulations barring the rental of recalled vehicles. He owns an auto dealership in Weatherford, Texas.

The House Ethics Committee on Monday said it is still reviewing the propriety of Williams’ amendment. The committee also released a number of documents including a 12-page statement written by Williams’ attorney, Chris Gober, and signed under oath by the congressman.

In it, Williams acknowledges not having consulted the Office of Congressional Ethics before proposing the exemption, even though an ethics handbook says members of Congress “should” do so before proposing legislation that affects them financially.

Williams strongly maintains he did nothing improper and at one point called allegations of a conflict “laughable.” He appeared on television news shows this week saying the claims are a “liberal hit job” by groups backed by prominent Democratic funder George Soros.

In the statement, Williams said “he had no indication that what he was doing could have possibly been perceived as unethical … not even to the point of inquiring with the committee on (its) propriety.”

Williams has noted a distinction in ethics rules between voting for measures that affect an entire class of businesses, versus those affecting only one House member’s business.

Farmers in Congress, for example, are allowed to work on farm policy but not on a measure affecting only their farm.

Williams said he sponsored the amendment at the request of the National Automotive Dealers Association because he thought it could hurt the more than 16,000 car dealerships nationally.

However, the ethics guide also says members of Congress should avoid the appearance of impropriety. Because introducing legislation involves “a degree of advocacy, above and beyond that involved in voting,” it says, they should exercise “added circumspection.”

Before introducing legislation in which they could have a financial stake, the guide says, House members “should first contact the (Ethics Committee) for guidance.”

Meredith McGehee, policy director of the Campaign Legal Center, said Williams did not do what he was supposed to do.

The legal center filed a complaint in November against Williams, after the Center for Public Integrity, an investigative news site, reported the potential conflict involving the Raechel and Jacqueline Houck Safe Rental Car Act.

Consumer groups pushed restrictions on rental cars after the two California sisters were killed while driving an Enterprise rental that had been recalled for faulty power steering hoses.

Williams’ amendment sought to limit the ban only to companies whose primary business is renting cars. The provision was adopted by the House but later replaced with an exemption for businesses with rental fleets of 35 or fewer cars.

In April, the Office of Congressional Ethics recommended that the House Ethics Committee review the case “as there is substantial reason to believe that Rep. Williams’ personal financial interest in his auto dealership may be perceived as having influenced his performance of official duties.”

In addition, Williams has been criticized for not cooperating at first with those reviewing his actions. The Ethics Office’s report said he declined to provide information “and was determined to be non-cooperative.”

But, once the case was sent to the Ethics Committee, Gober submitted the July 22 statement saying “it is simply not true” that Williams would have financially benefitted.

His Auto Mart has a deal with Enterprise Rent-A-Car in which customers with extended warranties through Fiat Chrysler Automobiles are given a special, $30 per day rental rate. The manufacturer or a warranty company pay for the rental, and the dealership does not mark up the fees for a profit.

The dealership also has a fleet of eight cars it loans to customers. In 2015, it received about $20,000 in reimbursements from Fiat Chrysler for the loaners but spent about $60,000 on the cars for insurance, maintenance and other costs.

There’s also no evidence that Williams has rented recalled cars or would benefit from an exemption to the law.

Still, Rosemary Shahan, founder of Sacramento-based Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety, said he has a financial incentive in exempting himself from the restrictions.

Offering a rental service draws more customers to his dealership, said Shahan, whose group pushed for the rental ban and opposed the exemptions.

Williams’ spokesman, Vince Zito, declined to comment, other than to say the congressman is cooperating “100 percent with the House Ethics Committee.”

“He has turned over every bit of information he’s been asked to provide,” Zito said.

Consumer advocates including McGehee and Craig Holman, lobbyist for Public Citizen, said the case also illustrates why the Ethics Office should have subpoena powers.

The office can push cases without it, said Holman. But, at times, it must send cases to the Ethics Committee without all of the pertinent information.

Unlike in Williams’ case, he said, the Ethics Committee “usually is not inclined to proceed with any investigation unless it is provided with ample documentation that warrants an investigation – hence, the Catch 22.”

Neither the Center for Public Integrity or the Campaign Legal Center lists Soros as a funder, though a KXAN-TV report said a backer of one of the news site’s funders is funded by Soros.

Kery Murakami is the Washington, D.C. reporter for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him at kmurakami@cnhi.com