I did both. Here's the letter I wrote to Mr. Lucie which is basically the same as what I wrote in the form.

Dear Mr. Lucie

The article on CNN's website concerning House Resolution 669, the Nonnative wildlife ban, has some misinformation about the proposed bill that I would like to see corrected. It is not an exotic animal ban. It is a bill that would ban all non-native animals from being imported, bred, sold or transported. This list is in the tens of thousands of animals, and includes every species of aquarium fish other than the common gold fish. It includes almost every pet bird, almost every pet reptile, every small mammal including hamsters and gerbils, etcetera. The bill was sponsored by representatives from Guam and American Somoa, who aren't even allowed to vote on these bills. American Somoa also already has a complete ban on the importation of any animal into Hawaii.

The stated purpose of this bill is to protect the United States from dangerous invasive species.
-There are already numerous laws in place on national, state and local levels that ban invasive species.
-The government's statistics about invasive species found at www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov spell out that only a minute percentage of the harmful invasive species have come into the country through the pet trade, with those already having strict restrictions in place.
-Almost every harmful invasive species in this country has gotten into this country in ballast water of international ships that use our waterways and in cargo brought in from over seas.

H.R.669 is an unreasonable and unjustified attack on the pet trade, and is not simply a reasonable ban on "exotic animals". If it was written for the purpose of protecting our wild life from invasive species, or even for the purpose of banning potentially dangerous animals being kept by private owners, it would be a redundant bill that covers existing legislation.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to seeing the corrected article.
Jake Wallace