A recurring theme in Washington D.C. over the past week is the Republican-driven push to roll back regulations ahead of the November presidential election.

Looking to carve into the regulatory landscape created in large part by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 10 years ago, is H.R. 6161, The Fostering Innovation Act. Introduced on July 20, by U.S. Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA) the bill is promoted as helping to ease regulatory burdens on emerging biotechnology companies.

The SEC currently establishes three classifications for public companies to determine their filing status, which include large accelerated filers (companies with a public float of more than $700 million); accelerated filers (companies with a public float of more than $75 million, but less than $700 million); and non-accelerated filers (companies with a public float of less than $75 million).

The proposed legislation would raise the minimum public float for accelerated filers to $250 million and add a revenue component to the accelerated filer definition that would ease regulations on companies with less than $100 million in revenues. The bill would allow businesses not designated as "emerging growth companies" by the recent JOBS Act to also bypass Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the requirement of an annual audit of internal controls.  

Biotech industry supporters make the case that it takes more than a decade to develop a new therapy and necessary research and development, lacking product revenue, ends up a burden on investors. Current filing status definitions that classify companies, according to proponents like BIO, are outdated and a resource drain on small public companies. Classifying companies with low product revenue as non-accelerated filers will help address this, they claim.

A even more politically-charged push by the GOP will come with a House vote on Thursday, for the “Red Tape Reduction and Small Business Job Creation Act (H.R. 4078).” Introduced by Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) and members of the Republican Study Committee , the package of six bills is intended to put a halt to the adoption of any new, “significant regulations” until the national unemployment rate, stuck above 8 percent for more than 40 months, drops to 6 percent or lower. The key word, however, is “intended.” A typo in the bill defines the threshold as an “employment rate,” minus the “un,” meaning that 94 percent of Americans would have to be out-of-work for the regulatory restrictions to kick in.

Democrats are blocking the unanimous consent needed to amend the current bill and fix the mistake. That obstruction likely won't mater much given that Senate Democrats have the votes to kill it anyway.

The legislation, whether or not it proves to be symbolic, is pitched as a job-creation measure, with proponents blaming regulations as a deterrent to hiring. In the lead-up to Thursday's vote, House republicans have cited a study by the Small Business Administration that estimates the cost, per employee, of federal regulations each year is around $10,000.

The legislation wrapped into H.R. 4078 includes:

The Midnight Rule Relief Act (H.R. 4607) which would bar so-called “midnight regulations” from being imposed by a “lame duck” president and Congress after an election.

The Sunshine for Regulatory Decrees and Settlements Act (H.R. 3862) which demands greater transparency and accountability when special interest groups seek to force new regulations through lawsuit settlements with regulatory agencies.

The Responsibly and Professionally Invigorating Development (RAPID) Act (H.R. 4377) which would streamline federal permitting and environment regulations.

The Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act (H.R. 373) which requires analysis of how changes in federal law impact state and local governments, and small businesses.

The SEC Regulatory Accountability Act (H.R. 2308) which would further require the Securities and Exchange Commission to conduct cost-benefit analysis of new rules.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission of Certain Costs & Benefits (H.R. 1840) which demands cost-benefit analysis by the CFTC.