To inform the Senate of the election of the Clerk.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with Senators Collins, Akaka, Warner, Lieberman, Allen, Mikulski, Snowe, Johnson, Dayton, Lautenberg, Kennedy, Durbin, Corzine, Landrieu, Bingaman, and Murray in submitting a resolution expressing the sense of the Congress that parity between Federal civilian pay and military pay should be maintained.

During this unprecedented time in our Nation's history, both members of the uniformed services and civilian Federal employees are maintaining our Nation's defenses, ensuring the security of the homeland, and making remarkable contributions to the general welfare of the United States. Pay parity among all those who serve our Nation appropriately recognizes the crucial work and honorable sacrifices of the civilian Federal workforce. The contributions of civilian employees range from Department of Defense employees working alongside the military in hostile environments abroad to those at the Department of Health and Human Services who consistently achieve critical breakthroughs in science and medicine. The sacrifice of these individuals is made evident by individuals such as CIA employee Mike Spann, the first casualty of the conflict in Afghanistan; Lawrence Foley, an employee of the U.S. Agency for International Development who was assassinated by terrorists in Jordan; Joseph Curseen, Jr. and Thomas Morris, Jr., postal workers who died as a result of the anthrax attacks of 2001; and many others.

Congress has demonstrated a bipartisan and longstanding commitment to the principle of pay parity by providing for equal pay adjustments in each of the last three years and 17 of the last 19 years. The budget proposal presented to Congress for Fiscal Year 2005 included a 3.5 percent pay raise for members of the uniformed services, but only a 1.5 percent pay raise for our dedicated public servants. However, both Houses of Congress reaffirmed their support for equal pay by including a 3.5 percent raise for both civilian and military employees in their respective resolutions and relevant Fiscal Year 2005 appropriations bills.

Providing equitable pay raises for federal employees is not just an issue of fairness. It is also critical to recruiting and retaining talented individuals in public service, and therefore, to successfully administering important Federal programs. Our Federal Government is facing a ``human capital'' crisis that threatens institutional experience and knowledge at every level. Within the next five years, our government could lose up to half of its workforce to retirement. These vacancies will occur in an era in which those entering the workforce are far less likely to join public service. Numerous studies by groups such as the Partnership for Public Service and the Council for Excellence in Government indicate that young Americans have developed a more positive attitude towards government and politics in recent years, but are still unlikely to consider government service as a career. One way to address this looming crisis is to take tangible steps to make Federal service more financially attractive.

I should note that despite the pressing need to draw more qualified candidates to Federal service, the Federal Employee Pay Comparability Act (FEPCA)--designed to bring Federal pay in line with private sector pay--has never been fully implemented. If we are serious about resolving our Federal workforce shortage issue, we must also begin a conversation about implementing FEPCA. At a minimum, however, we should recognize the importance of civilian Federal employees by providing equal pay raises to all those who choose to serve our country. Otherwise we risk further reducing the number of qualified candidates we can recruit to civilian federal jobs.

The dedication of both the uniformed services and our civilian employees embody the greatness of our Nation, day in and day out, through their commitment to public service. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that the contributions of both are recognized in an equitable manner.

Mr. President, according to the highly respected Humane Society of the United States, HSUS, Canada's government has authorized the slaughter of nearly 1 million seals over 3 years, 2004-2006, most of them between 12 days and 12 weeks old. This is the largest kill quota in history, which means that Canada is facilitating the artificial extension of an industry that has ceased to exist in most developed countries.

Canada officially opened its 6 months commercial seal hunt on November 15, 2004, paving the way for hundreds of thousands of baby seals to be killed for their fur during the 2004-2005 season. Today, I am joined by Senators Collins, Lugar, Reed, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Johnson, Jeffords, Wyden, Cantwell, Dodd, Feingold, Durbin, Schumer, Murray, and Dorgan in submitting a resolution that urges the Government of Canada to end this senseless, inhumane slaughter. Last year, we submitted a similar resolution, which was favorably reported by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Opposition to the seal hunt is mounting. Canada's own people don't support the hunt. Polling shows that 71 percent of Canadians--including 60 percent of Atlantic Canadians--believe the seal hunt should be banned outright or limited to seals over one year of age. Last week, Canada's conservative newspaper, National Post, called for an end to the hunt. In January 2004, the Belgian government announced its intention to prohibit the sale of seal fur; and in November 2003, 166 members of the British House of Commons signed an Early Day Motion opposing Canada's seal hunt. That motion received strong support from Britain's Foreign Office Minister, Mike O'Brien. The American people don't support it either. According to a 2002 poll conducted by Penn, Schoen and Berland, 79 percent of American voters oppose Canada's seal hunt; and the U.S. Government has gone on record in opposition to this senseless slaughter, as noted in the attached, January 19, 2005, letter from the U.S. Department of State, in response to a letter Senator Collins and I wrote to President Bush, urging him to raise this issue during his November 30, 2004 visit with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

In 2001, a group of independent veterinarians traveled to observe the seal hunt. What they witnessed was shocking to all who are concerned about the humane treatment of animals. The images are difficult to envision but harder to believe: skinning oflive animals and the dragging of live seals across the ice using steel hooks.

Few would argue that this industry still serves a legitimate purpose. Even in Newfoundland, where 93 percent of the hunt occurs, the economic contribution of the seal hunt is marginal. Exports of seal products from Newfoundland account for less than one-tenth of one percent of the province's total exports. Is that worth the damage the seal hunt causes to Canada's reputation? Out of a population of over half a million people, only about 4,000 Newfoundlanders participate in the hunt. That's a total take home pay of well under $800 per sealer.

Many believe that it makes little sense to continue an industry that only operates for a few weeks a year, in which the concentrated killings takes place. Moreover, it employs only a few hundred people on a seasonal, part-time basis.

The clubbing of baby seals can't be defended or justified, and Canada should end it just as we ended the Alaska baby seal massacre 20 years ago.

I ask unanimous consent that the January 19, 2005 letter from the U.S. State Department be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this resolution would designate August 7, 2005 as ``National Health Center Week'' in order to raise awareness of health services provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless centers.

I hope my colleagues will join me in cosponsoring this important resolution and I look forward to its passage in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution (H. Res. 581) and ask for its immediate consideration.