Letter Urging Substantive Changes in H.R. 669, the "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act"

April 30, 2009

The Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo
Chairwoman
Subcommitee on Insular Affairs.
Oceans, and Wildlife
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Henry E. Brown
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs,
Oceans, and Wildlife
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairwoman Bordallo and Ranking Member Brown:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest business federation representing more than three million businesses and organizations of every size, sector, and region, opposes H.R. 669, the "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act," in its current form, and urges you to make substantive changes to the bill in order to accomplish its stated purpose of preventing the import of nonnative wildlife species that could negatively impact the economy, human health, or the environment.

The Chamber recognizes that the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species can potentially harm indigenous species and habitats; unfortunately, this bill seeks to address those problems in a way that would do more harm than good. H.R. 669 contains a complex system of user fees, unrealistic compliance deadlines, and civil and criminal penalties that would have a detrimental impact on an already fragile economy and result in significant job loss for industries that rely on nonnative species.1 Worse, H.R. 669 would establish a process to assess the risk of a nonnative species utilizing a highly-restrictive "precautionary" approach; rather than requiring proof of harm before banning a species' importation, the bill would preemptively ban a species until it is proven safe. This "guilty until proven innocent" approach would have significant adverse repercussions without advancing the goals of this bill.

The Chamber strongly urges you to consider modifying H.R. 669 to require actual proof of harm—demonstrated by sound science and objective, peer-reviewed data—before banning a species from importation. If there is insufficient data about a species to make an informed risk assessment, it should not be automatically banned. Greater consideration should also be given to the economic impacts of banning a species by requiring regulators to conduct a robust costbenefit analysis prior to prohibiting import. Likewise, any risk analysis should include consideration of existing control efforts currently employed by industry, such as spaying and neutering requirements, possession permits, and separating genders to prevent propagation.

While no amount of regulation will prevent the malicious and intentional introduction of a nonnative species to a habitat, it is possible to reduce the number and frequency of nonnative wildlife species introduced to indigenous ecosystems through commonsense reforms that do not overly burden the business community.

The Chamber applauds Chairwoman Bordallo's statement during the April 23, 2009, subcommittee hearing on H.R. 669 that the subcommittee members "recognize that the bill is by no means perfect, and that changes will be needed to address various concerns before any legislation moves forward. That is the legislative process, and we are only at the beginning of that process." Given your willingness to consider substantive modifications to the bill, the Chamber welcomes the opportunity to work with you to modify this bill to ensure its purpose is accomplished in the least onerous manner.

Sincerely,

R. Bruce Josten

Cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans, and Wildlife

1 More than 30,000,000 U.S. households have pets that would be covered by this bill, according to an April 2009 survey by the American Pet Products Association. If the bill bans the import of these pets, there will be a direct adverse economic impact to all segments of the pet industry, including animal breeders, importers, exporters, wholesale distributors, pet product manufacturers, retail outlets, hobby clubs, trade associations, etc. Likewise, aquaculture businesses would be harmed despite the fact that these operations are often fully contained with little or no history of harmful releases of nonnative species to the environment.