By of the

Washington, D.C. — On the eve of his retirement from Congress, the House Ethics Committee has closed its inquiry into Wisconsin Republican Tom Petri of Fond du Lac, finding that Petri's conduct in a potential conflict-of-interest case did not merit sanction.

"The committee unanimously determined that it would be inequitable to issue a sanction to Representative Petri based on the facts of this matter," the committee said.

Earlier this year, an independent board, the Office of Congressional Ethics, found "substantial reason" to believe Petri violated House rules and standards when he advocated for companies that are in his district and in which he owns stock.

But the House Ethics Committee, which has the last word in such cases, disagreed.

According to the committee's report released Thursday:

"Over the course of several years, Representative Petri's staff proactively and repeatedly consulted with the committee's staff on whether and how Representative Petri could lawfully and properly engage in official actions on behalf of entities in which he had a financial interest. Representative Petri or his office also consistently followed the informal advice and guidance they received from the committee."

The case involved Petri's advocacy for two Wisconsin companies in his district and in which he owned substantial stock: the Oshkosh Corp., which makes military trucks and other heavy vehicles, and the Manitowoc Co., which makes cranes and food service equipment.

Petri said in a statement:

"The Ethics Committee confirms what I have said all along — I regularly consulted with the committee to ensure everything was done in accordance with House rules. I have always sought to represent my constituents in an honest and open way, and that is why I requested this review. I thank the Ethics Committee for acting before my term is up, and I'm glad they were able to specifically address and ultimately reject the misconceptions and inaccurate allegations that were published this year."

The ethics inquiry was prompted by stories by Gannett newspapers in early 2014 detailing Petri's advocacy for Wisconsin companies in which he owned stock.

Petri owned $500,000 to $1 million in Oshkosh stock and between $250,000 and $500,000 of Manitowoc stock at the end of 2013.

In one instance, he worked with other Wisconsin lawmakers to help Oshkosh retain a $3 billion defense contract it was awarded in 2009 to build Army vehicles.

Texas lawmakers had protested the contract on behalf of a losing bidder in their own state. Petri and other Wisconsin lawmakers pushed back against that effort.

Petri spoke to the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee about it in a conversation on the House floor.

His office also coordinated a joint letter from the Wisconsin congressional delegation to the secretary of defense arguing for Oshkosh to retain the contract.

The letter was initiated and drafted by Oshkosh. Petri also spoke to the secretary of the Army about the issue.

Oshkosh also has a subsidiary that makes fire trucks, and Petri advocated for the company on an issue involving federal truck weight limits.

In another instance, he advocated for the Manitowoc Co. when it sought relief from environmental rules affecting diesel engines in its cranes.

The Petri case involved some gray areas in congressional ethics rules. House members aren't prohibited from advocating for companies in which they own stock.

But they are supposed to consult first with the ethics panel before advocating on issues in which they have a direct financial interest. Petri's level of consultation with the committee was at the heart of the case.

In a report completed this past summer, the Office of Congressional Ethics acknowledged Petri had consulted many times with the Ethics Committee before acting.

But it found that he did not consult in all instances. Petri's lawyers said he didn't need to consult in every instance because much of his advocacy involved the same issues, the same companies and the same ethics questions.

The Office of Congressional Ethics also said Petri gave the Ethics Committee inaccurate information in one instance.

The ethics panel, made up of lawmakers from both parties, concluded Thursday that Petri "repeatedly sought guidance from the committee staff and, as evidenced by the contemporaneous email messages, engaged in a substantially complete and accurate — albeit imperfect — level of disclosure in seeking such informal advice."

The panel also said Petri's "conduct appears to have substantially complied with the (ethics) staff's guidance."

Petri, who has represented Wisconsin's 6th Congressional District since 1979, did not seek another term this year.

He will leave office early next month.