PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 30, 2009
Compete Act of 2009 - Amends the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to revise requirements for the internal control assessment component of a securities issuer's annual report.
Requires the attestation and report by a registered public accounting firm on an issuer's management assessment of its internal control structure and procedures to focus upon the process and system used by management to identify and manage risks, identify and implement key controls, and come to a conclusion on the effectiveness of the internal controls over financial reporting.
Prohibits an auditor's attestation and report from including a separate (pass/fail) opinion on the effectiveness of such internal controls.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires such attestation and report to be performed at three-year intervals.
Prescribes standards for such attestations and reports, including a risk-based evaluation.
Permits attestations and reports to rely on examinations and inspections by federal and state regulatory agencies.
Instructs the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to develop a standard of materiality for such assessments and reports based upon whether the internal control has a material effect on the company's financial statements and is significant to the issuer's overall financial status.
Exempts a smaller public company from the requirements for management assessment of internal controls, unless it voluntarily elects to comply with them.
People & committees
Rep. Meeks, Gregory W. [D-NY-6] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
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.1797 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.1797 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.1797 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.1797 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.