Well, I'm jumping in on the tail end of this but couldn't stop myself from commenting.
Being the (annoyingly) detailed person that I am, I just read through H.R. 669 in it's entirety. I also read up on the Extensions of Remarks.
IMHO, it's going to be hard to get this through. Their big focus (if you read between the lines) is the impact on nonnative species such as the brown tree snake, coqui tree frog and the coconut rhinoceros beetle. All problems for Guam - the district the rep sponsoring this bill is from. Which, BTW, she admits were all accidentally introduced but feels that we need to have laws in place to stop the intentional introduction of nonnative wildlife before it happens. She only sites four specific (without detail of three of the four) areas that have had problems; Florida Everglades, Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes and Guam.
Rep. Bardallo also stated the following:
Nonnative plants and animals are known by scientists to have been introduced into ecosystems in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. Invasive, nonnative species can harm the economy, environment, other animal species' health and human health. Such harm ranges, for example, from depreciating farmland property values and loss of irrigation water to increasing spread of disease. Additionally, collapse of buildings, competition with native animals, sport, game, and endangered species losses, habitat alteration, and other ecosystem disturbances, have all resulted from the introduction of certain invasive species.
This is a silly argument - this has occurred over many decades. Some due to natural phenomenon, some by people over time, some by landscapers, "What beautiful species! Lets see if we can grow it back home..." and some even due to animal migration - consider their droppings
This is an area of study that part of my dad's PhD is in. Uh, not the 'droppings' specifically...
Also, there is already an Act in place that addresses this issue. Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to designate wildlife species considered "injurious'' to humans and prohibits importation of such species into the country. Her argument re: this not being sufficient though is also a little silly because she claims, "that to designate a species as injurious can take up to four years, at which point harm has already been done." However, you can read the deadlines http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h669/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:33
which all in all, fall pretty darned close to that four years Rep. Bardallo is concerned about.
In any case, given the wide breadth of what this covers (many, many, exotics - birds, lizards, frogs, snakes, various rodents, maybe even some dogs and cats?) and the uproar it has caused, it might be hard for them to pass this thing. If you google H.R. 669 you'll see all the various types of pet owners discussing this and it's possible impact. There are a number of co-sponsor but I still think that unless they make so major revisions it will be hard to pass. Keep in mind there are also several bills linked to this so, thiese this need to be watched and someone needs to give a good counter argument. Just because theirs is seriously flawed doesn't mean they lose. You gotta have someone point out those flaws directly, concisely, and knock out it each point that way. We can't just say, "because I love my pets and we've always been allowed in the past..." etc. On 2/4/09 it was referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Jeez, heck of a first post.
Eh, time to go play 'peek-a-boo' with my little Olliegoo.