The thing that I disagree with, as far as using zebra mussels as an example, is that they were not a result of the pet trade, or even intentional importation.
From the website http://www.great-lakes.net/envt/flor...ve/zebra.html:
They are believed to have been transported to the Great Lakes via ballast water from a transoceanic vessel. The ballast water, taken on in a freshwater European port was subsequently discharged into Lake St. Clair, near Detroit, where the mussel was discovered in 1988. Since that time, they have spread rapidly to all of the Great Lakes and waterways in many states, as well as Ontario and Quebec.

So basically, this bill would do nothing to stop the unintentional, but accidental introduction of species such as zebra mussels that no one realized were even taking a voyage on that vessel. It isn't like someone knowingly imported them into the country and then released them. So her argument just doesn't seem to fit with the bill if you ask me?