Today the U.S. House passed a new version of a bill to change who can serve on the Environmental Protection Agency’s scientific advisory board. As happened last year, the Iowans split along party lines.

The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act of 2015 passed by 236 votes to 181 (roll call). Only one Republican voted against the bill, and just two Democrats voted for it. Iowa’s Republicans Rod Blum (IA-01), David Young (IA-03), and Steve King (IA-04) were all in the yes column, while Democrat Dave Loebsack (IA-02) voted no.

Cristina Marcos reported for The Hill,

The bill would prohibit the board, which advises the EPA on its regulations, from appointing members who are registered lobbyists. It would also require that at least 10 percent of board members be from state, local or tribal governments.

Republicans argued that the bill would increase transparency at the EPA. […]

But Democrats said the legislation would create unnecessary burdens and limit the number of environmental experts serving on the board by establishing a quota for people representing regional governments.

“Instead of improving the Science Advisory Board’s structure or operation, the bill will limit the quality of scientific advice that the EPA receives and allow seemingly endless delays in EPA’s regulatory process,” said Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.).

Emily Atkin reported earlier this month at Think Progress that the Science Advisory Board Reform Act

would change the rules surrounding which scientists are allowed to serve on the Science Advisory Board (SAB), a group that gives scientific advice to the EPA. The SAB reviews the quality of science used to justify EPA regulations, like rules that limit air pollution from power plants. Among other things, the bill sponsored by Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) would make it easier for scientists with financial ties to corporations to advise the agency, and would make it more difficult for scientists who have applied for grants from the EPA to join the board.

Before the vote on final passage, House members approved (again mostly along party lines) an amendment offered by GOP Representative David McKinley. Marcos describes this amendment as prohibiting “people from becoming members of the board if they currently receive EPA grants or contracts.” It could have been worse. A separate amendment submitted by McKinley, which did not get a vote today, would have banned the advisory board from considering five separate scientific reports compiled in the U.S. or published by international agencies.

A similar bill to change the EPA’s scientific advisory board passed the U.S. House last November as part of a package of legislation targeting the EPA. All of those bills died in the Senate, which was then under Democratic control. If the Senate forwards this year’s version to President Barack Obama, the White House has said his advisers would recommend that he veto it.