The House has set the stage for a showdown with the Senate and the Obama Administration over legislation to make the regulatory process more transparent and accountable.

The House voted 253-167 in favor of HR 3010, the Regulatory Accountability Act (RAA) on December 2. The bill now heads to the Senate.

The RAA would amend the Administrative Procedure Act to require that all agencies base their regulations on evidence and put forward reasonable alternatives to any rule put forward.

The U.S. Chamber strongly supports the bill and applauded the bill’s passage in the House. “After 65-years inaction, we are pleased that the House voted today to improve how federal agencies write the regulations that most significantly affect our economy,” said Bruce Josten, executive vice president for Government Affairs at the U.S. Chamber. “The principles in this legislation make the regulatory process more transparent, agencies more accountable, and regulations more cost-effective, and it is our hope that the Senate will soon follow suit.”

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report on the bill that credits the legislation for creating more public participation in the rulemaking process, pointing out that the RAA will “codify many practices aimed at increasing regulatory transparency and accountability that are currently required under several executive orders.”

“All branches of the government have recognized the need for greater agency accountability and citizen participation in rulemakings,” continued Josten.  “Given our precarious economy, it’s time we ensure our regulations are narrowly tailored, supported by strong and credible data and evidence, and impose the least burden possible, while still implementing Congressional intent.”

Just days before the House vote, the president threatened to veto RAA if it passes. In a November 29 Statement of Administration Policy, the White House said the bill “would impose unprecedented procedural requirements on agencies that would prevent them from performing their statutory responsibilities. It would also create needless regulatory and legal uncertainty and increase costs for businesses, as well as state, tribal, and local governments, and further impede the implementation of commonsense protections for the American public.”