PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 14, 2007
Amend Misinterpreted Excessive Regulation In Corporate America Act - Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to direct the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to appoint an ombudsman to act as a liaison between the Board and any registered public accounting firm or issuer regarding: (1) issues or disputes concerning the preparation or issuance of any audit report with respect to that issuer; and (2) problems resulting from Board regulatory activities, particularly implementation of management assessment of internal controls.
Revises requirements governing appointment of Board members. Provides for Presidential appointment of Board members, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
Declares that Congress reserves the authority to establish periodic limits upon the amount of fees which may be collected on behalf of the Board.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Instructs the Securities and Exchange Commission to: (1) adopt revisions to its rules regarding management's assessment of an issuer's internal control structure and procedures; and (2) adopt a more risk-based statement on internal control reporting that focuses internal control review on financial controls having significant risk of failing to prevent financial damages that would be material to the issuer's financial statements.
Instructs the Board to revise its standards for auditor attestation to and reporting on management's internal control assessment.
Revises the requirement that each registered public accounting firm that prepares or issues the audit report for an issuer attest to the internal control assessment made by the issuer's management. Allows an issuer, in the alternative, to engage separately a different registered public accounting firm to attest to such assessment. (Current law prohibits such separate attestation engagements.)
Prohibits any private right of action against a registered public accounting firm in any federal or state court on the basis of a violation or alleged violation of assessment requirements or standards issued by the Board for purposes of implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
People & committees
Rep. Garrett, Scott [R-NJ-5] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance and Government Sponsored Enterprises.
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1049 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1049 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1049 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1049 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.