Endangered species bill pulled from House as Lehigh Valley conservation leader lobbies against it

Barbara Malt, president of the Lehigh Valley Audubon Society, traveled to Washington, D.C., on April 22 in hopes of persuading lawmakers to reject a controversial proposal to overhaul the Endangered Species Act.

By the time she left Capitol Hill, the bill — which had been expected to come to a vote in the House that day — had been pulled from the floor. Politico reported that the decision was due to Republican opposition to the bill.

The Endangered Species Act Amendments Act of 2025, introduced by Rep. Bruce Westerman, R-Ark., would be the most significant rewrite in decades of the 1973 law that serves as the federal government’s primary tool for protecting species at risk of extinction.

“We view the bill as very dangerous for anyone who cares about our wildlife, the health of our ecosystems, and ultimately human health,” Malt said. “It would have stripped the original act of 1973 of all its power to protect wildlife.” 

Supporters say it would improve transparency and make the law more effective. Conservation groups, including the Audubon Society, argue it would weaken core protections.

“There’s nothing untransparent about the current process,” Malt said. 

The law has historically relied on scientific assessments and habitat protections to guide decision-making about listing and protecting species, according to the Congressional Research Service. 

Malt pointed to multiple provisions she said would undermine the law’s scientific foundation: limiting habitat protections to areas species currently occupy and altering timelines for listing and delisting species. 

“If the species has dwindled to a tiny amount, it can’t recover if you don’t protect anything except the tiny amount of habitat they currently occupy,” Malt said. 

Malt raised concerns about the species listing process, which could take five to 10 years under the proposed bill, potentially delaying protections for species already at risk. 

“During which time, the likelihood that the species would go extinct if it’s already endangered is extremely high,” Malt said. “You can’t wait five to 10 years to take action. It would have also made the process of removing a species from endangered status a 30-day process. You could not possibly have sufficient consultation and consideration of scientific data during that time, so decisions would be made much more haphazardly or based on political desires.”

Malt has been involved with Lehigh Valley Audubon Society for about 30 years and said the stakes are both national and local. 

She highlighted the recovery of the bald eagle as an example of the Endangered Species Act’s success. The species was once nearly eliminated from Pennsylvania but has since rebounded under federal protection. 

On the other hand, Malt said species in Pennsylvania remain at risk, including the bog turtle, Karner blue butterfly, rusty patched bumblebee, and four bat species, which are listed as endangered. 

According to the Pennsylvania Game Commission, there are 23 endangered animal species in Pennsylvania. 

“We don’t want to lose our bats,” Malt said. “They have roles to play in ecosystems, like keeping our insect pests under control.” 

“Bird populations are in serious decline,” Malt said. “We’ve done enormous damage as a country to the health of our bird populations.”

North America has lost nearly 3 billion breeding birds since 1970, roughly one in four birds, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

“When we see one type of animal being challenged and going downhill, we know we’re damaging all sorts of other things in the process,” Malt said. “I’m concerned about the health of ecosystems as a whole, as they support birds, other animals, and ultimately, how they support humans. We need healthy ecosystems for healthy humans.”

Malt said her goal in meeting with lawmakers was to ensure they understood the bill’s implications and to urge them to vote against it. 

The bill was ultimately pulled from the House floor before a vote — a decision Malt said was likely due to a lack of support among lawmakers and advocacy groups, who explained the bill’s implications to them. Malt believes that advocacy efforts, such as meetings with lawmakers, may have contributed to this outcome.

“We’re super happy that it was pulled,” Malt said. “It’s possible it could be reintroduced, but there’s nothing really that could be done to salvage this bill.”

Mackenzie has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Malt said the experience of advocating on Capitol Hill was a reminder of the role individuals can play in shaping policy.

“It makes these things that happen in our nation’s capital feel so real to know that an average, ordinary citizen of Pennsylvania can walk the halls, meet with congressional staff, and have a voice,” Malt said.