Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 19, 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.
Source last updated: Dec 5, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
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.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.1526 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.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.1526 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.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.1526 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.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.1526 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.