PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Jul 8, 2013
Audit Integrity and Job Protection Act - Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX) to deny the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board any authority to require that audits conducted for a particular issuer of securities in accordance with SOX standards be conducted by specific registered public accounting firms, or that such audits be conducted for an issuer by different registered public accounting firms on a rotating basis.
Directs the Comptroller General (GAO) to update the November 2003 report, "Study on the Potential Effects of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation," and review the potential effects (including costs and benefits) of requiring the mandatory rotation of registered public accounting firms.
Requires such update also to study: (1) whether mandatory rotation of registered public accounting firms would mitigate against potential conflicts of interest between registered public accounting firms and issuers; (2) whether such a mandatory rotation would impair audit quality due to the loss of industry or company-specific knowledge gained by a registered public accounting firm through years of experience auditing the issuer; and (3) what effect SOX has had upon registered public accounting firms' independence, and whether additional independence reforms are needed.
People & committees
Rep. Hurt, Robert [R-VA-5] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 321 - 62 (Roll no. 306). (text: CR H4182)
House roll call 306 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 321 - 62 (Roll no. 306).(text: CR H4182)
House roll call 306 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H4186-4187)
At the conclusion of debate, the Yeas and Nays were demanded and ordered. Pursuant to the provisions of clause 8, rule XX, the Chair announced that further proceedings on the motion would be postponed.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 1564.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H4182-4184)
Mr. Hurt moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 103.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 113-142.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 113-142.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 52 - 0.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Prior to Referral.
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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 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.1564 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.1564 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.1564 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.1564 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.