Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment to increase HOPWA funding. This amendment is tremendously important for thousands of people afflicted with AIDS. I appreciate the good work the Chairman has done on this bill, as well as the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle. The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is when it comes to the HOPWA program I think we can do better. The National Institutes of Health estimates there are between 850,000 and 950,000 Americans living with HIV and AIDS. A majority of these individuals will face a housing crisis at some point during their illness as a result of increased medical expenses and lost wages. More than 200,000 people living with HIV/AIDS are in need of housing assistance and HOPWA is the only federal program specifically designed to meet this need. The HOPWA program is one of the most cost-effective ways to provide people living with HIV/AIDS with adequate and affordable housing. Acute care facilities under Medicaid cost more than $1,000 a day as compared to HOPWA community housing, which averages $55 to $110 per day. The program keeps those living with HIV/AIDS off the streets and out of expensive acute care facilities. My predecessor, Stewart B. McKinney, died of AIDS-related pneumonia. His wife, Lucie, carries on his work as chairman of the Stewart B. McKinney Foundation. This foundation is dedicated to providing housing to persons and families living with HIV/AIDS. The McKinney House and other HOPWA programs approach the HIV crisis in a truly caring, community-based and cost-effective manner. Because 90 percent of HOPWA funds are distributed to states by formula, states and localities control how money is spent--not the federal government. Communities are empowered to use HOPWA funds to meet their unique housing needs, from providing short-term supportive housing for low- income persons with HIV/AIDS, to building new community residences. The flexibility has, in large measure, contributed to the widespread success of the HOPWA program. The bottom line is that money for HOPWA is money well spent. I urge support for the HOPWA Amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and in support of the HOPE VI program. Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed Congress would all but eliminate funding for this highly successful program. While the $50 million for HOPE VI contained in this bill is $50 million more than the President requested for this program, this is still a cut of $524 million from 2003, a reduction of 90 percent, and will gut a program that brings hope and opportunity to so many. In Stamford, Connecticut, a HOPE VI grant transformed a dim, crime- ridden, and dilapidated housing project into a beautiful place to live and raise your children. As a result of this federal assistance, Southwood Square is now a safe place for children to play, its residents receive job training on site, and working parents have access to a child care facility. Just as importantly, residents are involved in their community. I wish Members could see the transformation that has taken place there. If they did, I doubt they would be cutting this program. The most beautiful part of HOPE VI the way a grant from the federal government produces a ripple effect in the neighborhood. The transformation that occurs in HOPE VI communities is funded with a small investment in the form of a federal grant, but primarily is funded with local and private money. The lesson there is that when the federal government demonstrates its interest in improving the housing needs of low-income families, the community responds in a big way. The question that begs to be asked is: Why would such a successful program be cut so drastically? I recognize the fiscal constraints of this budget cycle, but this is not time to weaken our commitment to HOPE VI. I urge passage of this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 2210, the School Readiness Act, because, on balance, this legislation will not benefit vulnerable children and families in Connecticut. Since its inception in 1965, Head Start has been helping low-income children in Connecticut start kindergarten with the skills necessary for success. The program not only prepares children for school by providing a solid foundation in cognitive learning and socialization skills, but also makes them ``ready to learn'' by providing comprehensive health, dental and nutritional services. By focusing on the whole child, Head Start children start school more eager and able to learn. I do not support the School Readiness Act because in my judgment, the state demonstration project contained in the bill could dilute the comprehensive services and parental involvement Head Start children depend on. The bill's loosely-defined performance standards give states overly-broad flexibility to meet federal guidelines. Consequently, vulnerable children and their families may not be guaranteed the services necessary to overcome barriers to success, or the same level of services they currently receive. There are a number of laudable provisions in H.R. 2210 which will strengthen and improve Head Start. I support efforts to raise academic standards and improve teacher quality to ensure children are given every opportunity to be productive students and citizens. Unfortunately, H.R. 2210 does not guarantee that vulnerable children will continue to receive the type and scope of services necessary to start kindergarten ready and able to learn. Early childhood is a critical time for children to develop the physical, emotional, social and cognitive skills they will need for the rest of their lives. A child who enters school without these skills runs a significant risk of starting behind and staying behind. We must ensure all children have an unfettered start and an equal opportunity to achieve in both school and life. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to oppose any reduction in Head Start standards, accountability and performance.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a fiscal conservative, I believe national service is one of the most productive and cost-effective investments our government can make. Through service, Americans of all ages gain a sense of commitment to their community and their country, which will prove invaluable for the rest of their lives. National service benefits both the recipient and the giver. Volunteers not only address an immediate need, they lead and teach through example, and through that example, they learn the value of serving and helping others. We need to harness the energy and commitment of those anxious to contribute to their country, not deny them the opportunity to serve. As an eighth grader, I vividly remember President John Kennedy's call to service when he created the Peace Corps in 1961. He said, ``Life in the Peace Corps will not be easy, but if the life is not easy, it will be rich and satisfying.'' As a former Peace Corps volunteer, and I want to emphasize I had the name ``volunteer,'' I can attest to the positive effect the Peace Corps has on the lives of people around the world. Peace Corps volunteers are not high-paid consultants. Just like AmeriCorps volunteers, they are hands-on workers in the trenches who live in the communities they serve. Just like the Peace Corps, the challenges are great for those working in domestic service programs, but the rewards are immeasurable. I believe I would not be a Member of Congress today were it not for my experience in the Peace Corps. And I particularly believe I am a better person because of this service. I think the same thing applies to those who serve in AmeriCorps. Both Democrats and Republicans should speak loudly and passionately in support of all service programs. And we must not stop until citizen service truly becomes a universal opportunity and a common expectation. I want to say parenthetically, in most cases, AmeriCorps volunteers in my communities are young men and women who have no resources whatsoever to serve their community or their country if it were not for AmeriCorps. As most of you know, AmeriCorps--the most recognizable domestic service program--is experiencing significant challenges this year, and there is danger that countless programs across the country will receive little or no funding. Without question, there have been mistakes and mismanagements by the Corporation for National and Community Service. This summer, however, a series of steps have been taken to help put AmeriCorps on a sound financial footing. Earlier this month, we passed, and the President signed, the Strengthening AmeriCorps Program Act to correct the financial accounting problems. Additionally, the President has named David Eisner, AOL/Time Warner executive, as his nominee to head the Corporation. With these reforms in place, we ought to fulfill our commitment to the thousands of young people who have answered the President's call to service. I believe we must to do that, but not in this legislation. We are in a war against terrorism, and national service is a vital part of winning that war. AmeriCorps and other service programs are the right prescription during these times because the best antidote to terror and hate in society are acts of kindness and service. If we are truly to expand service opportunities, we must find a way to work with those who see national service so differently. Recently, I read an op-ed by former Majority Leader Dick Armey stating that programs like AmeriCorps robs the American taxpayer. I could not disagree more, but I know this notion is shared by too many of my colleagues. As a Peace Corps volunteer, I was paid a minimum wage to live, and I was given a small stipend. I have failed to understand why some of my colleagues would object to people earning a degree while serving their community. Isn't that preferable to just being given a grant. I do not understand why we would not be eager and thrilled to have more people participate in community service, particularly those with the least amount of resources. The current accounting problems at the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and ensure all service programs are transparent and accountable. I believe that has to happen, but not in the vehicle we see here today. We need to reauthorize national service. We need to find a way to prevent further mistakes and mismanagement. It will not happen on this legislation. It needs to happen with men and women in this Congress working together. And I believe that there are commitments on both sides of the aisle and in the White House to do that. The current accounting problems of the Corporation offer an opportunity to work together and in doing so, we will remember that a life of service connects us to generations of Americans who we will never know but whose service and sacrifice enable us to live in freedom. It also connects us to future generations of Americans who will inherit a world be built on the legacy of service we leave them. Increasing and expanding opportunities to serve will not be easy, but in the words of President Kennedy, the effort will be ``rich and satisfying.'' I hope this Chamber will reauthorize national service. I hope we will find the funds necessary to make sure this program continues unabated, and I believe we will.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to implement free trade agreements that have been negotiated with Chile and Singapore. These agreements are an important step in restoring our international competitiveness, stimulating our economy and promoting long-term economic growth. The Administration's first two negotiated agreements since receiving trade promotion authority in 2002 will benefit businesses in Connecticut, which exported $279 million worth of goods to Singapore and $59 million worth of goods to Chile in 2000. More broadly, these agreements provide an excellent framework for creating larger free trade areas. Chile could be a model for creating a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and even more broadly, a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The country is an ideal partner in South America because, unlike many other nations in the region, it has stabilized and restructured its economy, lifting price controls, deregulating labor markets, and privatizing state enterprises. The United States is Chile's largest single-country trading partner, accounting for 20 percent of Chilean exports and 15 percent of imports in 2002. Chile is the United States' 34th largest export destination and 36th largest import contributor, but because Chile already has free trade agreements with other countries, including Canada, an agreement with Chile is critical to reduce the relatively high tariffs U.S. businesses face compared to these countries, and allow them to compete. Singapore is a much larger trading partner for the United States. It is our 11th largest export market, with $16.2 billion in goods, and the 16th largest source for imports, with $14.8 billion. The United States is Singapore's second-largest trading partner, after Malaysia and before even Japan. Both countries already have relatively open trade with very low tariffs, if any at all, so the implementation of this agreement should not create a significant imbalance of any sort. Southeast Asia generally has been a poor partner in trade, with average tariffs near 30 percent, and I have serious concerns about these nations' respect for intellectual property (IP) rights, but this agreement is a step in the right direction. The agreement allows U.S. companies to receive monetary compensation in cases where IP rights have been violated, and establishes tough penalties under Singapore law for IP violators. In my judgment, trade can have a positive effect on social reforms and environmental protections by facilitating economic development and creating both the income and the institutional structures to address those issues. Since 1994, when trade promotion authority expired, the United States has been steadily losing its status as the leader of free trade. We can't afford to let this decline continue. Passing trade promotion authority was like setting up a ladder that gives us the ability to get back to the top, and passing these two free trade agreements takes the first steps up that ladder. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. The debate tonight to allow the reimportation of FDA-approved drugs is obviously long overdue. The arguments that Americans will be put at risk and the pharmaceutical industry will be harmed is specious and reminds me of the debate on the use of generic drugs that we had years ago in States throughout America. Like the reimportation of drugs, the use of generic drugs was illegal and stayed that way for years and years because the pharmaceutical industry opposed it. Like the reimportation of drugs, we were told, generic drugs would harm the pharmaceutical industry and endanger individual Americans. Fortunately, we did not listen to those false arguments then, and we should not listen to them now, as they relate to the importation of FDA drugs. If Canadians, Germans, and others have the ability to buy FDA-approved drugs at a fraction of the cost, then Americans in this day and age should have the same opportunity. Please vote for H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act. I thank the proponent, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) and others, for their efforts and the House leadership for bringing this bill before the chamber.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation to implement free trade agreements that have been negotiated with Chile and Singapore. These agreements are an important step in restoring our international competitiveness, stimulating our economy and promoting long-term economic growth. The Administration's first two negotiated agreements since receiving trade promotion authority in 2002 will benefit businesses in Connecticut, which exported $279 million worth of goods to Singapore and $59 million worth of goods to Chile in 2000. More broadly, these agreements provide an excellent framework for creating larger free trade areas. Chile could be a model for creating a Central American Free Trade Agreement, and even more broadly, a Free Trade Area of the Americas. The country is an ideal partner in South America because, unlike many other nations in the region, it has stabilized and restructured its economy, lifting price controls, deregulating labor markets, and privatizing state enterprises. The United States is Chile's largest single-country trading partner, accounting for 20 percent of Chilean exports and 15 percent of imports in 2002. Chile is the United States' 34th largest export destination and 36th largest import contributor, but because Chile already has free trade agreements with other countries, including Canada, an agreement with Chile is critical to reduce the relatively high tariffs U.S. businesses face compared to these countries, and allow them to compete. Singapore is a much larger trading partner for the United States. It is our 11th largest export market, with $16.2 billion in goods, and the 16th largest source for imports, with $14.8 billion. The United States is Singapore's second-largest trading partner, after Malaysia and before even Japan. Both countries already have relatively open trade with very low tariffs, if any at all, so the implementation of this agreement should not create a significant imbalance of any sort. Southeast Asia generally has been a poor partner in trade, with average tariffs near 30 percent, and I have serious concerns about these nations' respect for intellectual property (IP) rights, but this agreement is a step in the right direction. The agreement allows U.S. companies to receive monetary compensation in cases where IP rights have been violated, and establishes tough penalties under Singapore law for IP violators. In my judgment, trade can have a positive effect on social reforms and environmental protections by facilitating economic development and creating both the income and the institutional structures to address those issues. Since 1994, when trade promotion authority expired, the United States has been steadily losing its status as the leader of free trade. We can't afford to let this decline continue. Passing trade promotion authority was like setting up a ladder that gives us the ability to get back to the top, and passing these two free trade agreements takes the first steps up that ladder. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2249, the Postmasters Equity Act, was introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh). The gentleman chairs the Committee on Government Reform's Special Panel on Postal Reform and Oversight and has been a leader in Congress on postal issues. I am proud to support this legislation along with the members of this special panel, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the full committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2249 affords postmasters the same options given to postal supervisors when negotiating pay and benefits with the U.S. Postal Service. This bill would extend to postmasters and nonunion postal employees the fact-finding procedures already established under current law for postal supervisors. The fact-finding process allows for an unbiased review of issues in dispute during negotiations, as well as the ability to issue nonbinding recommendations to resolve those issues. Currently, without this right, postmasters lack any form of recourse when pay talks under the consultation process fail. Mr. Speaker, this bill is a matter of fairness. Postmasters deserve the same option available to postal supervisors, and the bill would produce an improved and fair consultation process. Frankly, I think it is a change most of us feel is long overdue. The Committee on Government Reform believes adding a fact-finding option to the consultation process for postmasters will help strengthen their role in improving the quality of mail service for postal patrons and also in managing local post offices. Their role has been eroded over the years, especially for postmasters at small- and medium-sized post offices who serve as front line managers. The Nation's two postmasters' organizations, the National League of Postmasters and the National Association of Postmasters of the United States, support this legislation. The Postal Service Reorganization Act of 1970 created a consultative process for postmasters and other nonunion postal employees to negotiate pay and benefits but did not include postmasters in a fact- finding process subsequently provided to other management. Postmasters are often the heart and soul of the community. In many cases, they are the community's only link to the Federal Government. Mr. Speaker, it is important that we do what we can to support their work in the 38,000 post offices across the country. I am pleased that the House is considering this bill today. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from New York for introducing H.R. 2249 and urge its passage, and I would also obviously commend the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is a very active person on issues dealing with labor and management issues. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2249) to amend chapter 10 of title 39, United States Code, to include postmasters and postmasters' organizations in the process for the development and planning of certain personnel policies, schedules, and programs of the United States Postal Service, and for other purposes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I also yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 240) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Community Health Center Week to raise awareness of health services provided by community, migrant, public housing, and homeless health centers, and for other purposes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 240, introduced by my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), commends the invaluable work of community health centers across the country. As the text of this resolution states, there are over 1,000 health centers in the U.S. that provide outstanding health-related services to primarily low-income individuals. The vast majority of these care centers welcome all patients, regardless of their health coverage or ability to pay. Patients pay what they can afford at these facilities, and virtually no one in need is ever turned away. Those who seek help receive first-rate care at a fraction of the standard cost. In addition to patient fees, community health centers are supported by Federal grants and contributions from State and local governments, Medicare, and private interests. On behalf of the House, I want to join with the gentleman from Illinois and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) in praising the compassionate work of the thousands of employees and volunteers at community health centers across our great Nation. These care givers help so many, and this resolution intends to recognize their selfless efforts. In addition, I hope the House's consideration of House Resolution 240 today will raise awareness of the services provided by the community health centers to all Americans who seek high-quality health care. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Illinois for introducing House Resolution 240. I urge all Members to support its adoption. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation under consideration.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would just note for the gentleman, we were trying to filibuster a little bit to give him a chance to get to the Chamber to speak on this important resolution.

Mr. SHAYS. I think you should get down on bended knees in gratitude to the gentleman for doing that. Mr. FATTAH. And I have been on bended knees many, many times, for Congressman Borski was just extraordinarily helpful in my own career and in the careers of other younger Members. Every day he would ask me about how my family was doing, particularly my young daughter, Cameron. He was concerned about where she was going to school, what she was doing, what activities she was involved in, because he had daughters and he was totally involved in their upbringing. He would make sure that he made it to their soccer meets. I remember even one time there was a debate here on the floor and Bob said, look, my daughter's in a soccer meet, she's on a soccer scholarship over in Virginia, this is one of her first games and I'm going to go do it. That is the kind of person he was. He represented our city in the finest of ways and traditions. I just wish him well as he goes forward. It is the least that we can do to name a post office in his honor. There are some Members who get elected to Congress, and it is an honor for them to be able to serve. I am convinced that Bob Borski is one of the few Members which this institution was honored by his service. I just rise today to support this bill. I thank my friend, the gentleman from the great State of Connecticut, and I thank the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter). (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2328) to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the ``Robert A. Borski Post Office Building.''

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2328, introduced by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel), designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2001 East Willard Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, as the Robert A. Borski Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, this legislation honors a devoted former Member of this body. Former Congressman Robert Borski preceded the gentleman from Pennsylvania as the U.S. Representative of Pennsylvania's Third District. The citizens of the Third District in Philadelphia elected Mr. Borski to the House 10 times before he retired after the 107th Congress. He continues to be a good friend to all who worked in this House with him. It is a deserved tribute to Mr. Borski's public service that this post office be named after him, and I am pleased the House is considering this bill today. Congressman Borski was most active on the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, where he was the ranking Democratic member on the Subcommittee on Highways, Transit and Pipelines. He was also a member of the Democratic Whip operations, serving as the regional whip for Pennsylvania and Ohio. Congressman Borski was known especially for his accessibility to his constituents. He frequently utilized the town hall meeting in his district to meet with his constituents firsthand. In addition, he always had at least two offices in Philadelphia to save constituents from traveling all the way to Washington. Mr. Speaker, for all these reasons, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his work on this measure that honors Congressman Robert A. Borski. And just to say on a personal level, that I have had the honor to have worked with him for most of his 10 terms, and found him to be extraordinarily hard-working, very dedicated, very personable, not partisan, but clearly proud to be a Democratic Representative to this body. It was a pleasure to serve with him. He is clearly deserving of this recognition. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill under consideration.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1399) to redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South Vine Street in Glenwood, Iowa, as the ``William J. Scherle Post Office Building.''

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, S. 1399, introduced by the esteemed gentleman from Iowa, Senator Harkin, redesignates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 101 South Vine Street in Glenwood, Iowa, as the William J. Scherle Post Office Building. Mr. Speaker, Congressman Bill Scherle of Iowa has lived a life that is worthy of commemoration by this House. He served four terms as a representative of the people of Iowa in this body, from 1967 to 1975, and prior to that he was a member of the Iowa State legislature for 6 years. One of Congressman Scherle's most remarkable contributions in office was his determined work in freeing the crew of the USS Pueblo, which was captured by North Korea in January 1968. The North Koreans imprisoned and brutally tortured the members of the crew, and Congressman Scherle was the most outspoken leader in Congress on the crisis. Eventually, due largely to his leadership, all but one member of the crew, Richard Benden, was released and returned safely home. In addition, Congressman Scherle took particular interest in rural issues, which were most important to his district's constituents. He was a farmer himself, as well as a businessman, which seems somewhat redundant because farmers have to be businessmen as well. But in addition to being a farmer/businessman, he was a businessman and a Republican Party official in his State prior to becoming an elected official. Now retired, Congressman Scherle continues to live with his beloved wife, Jane, on their farm outside of Henderson, Iowa. I understand he enjoys spending as much time as he can with his six grandchildren. I think it is pretty special, as well, that the Senator from Iowa has introduced this bill because he ran two House races against Bill Scherle. The first match-up in 1972 was won by Congressman Scherle, and the second time around, in 1974, the Senator from Iowa was victorious. The two have since become good friends, and after running two campaigns against each other, I think that is a refreshing commentary on both these dedicated public officials and the process. I also want to recognize the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for his work on H.R. 2558, a virtually identical piece of legislation introduced here in the House. I know he worked alongside the Senator from Iowa to recognize Bill Scherle in the Congress, and I commend him for his efforts as well. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I commend the Senator from Iowa for introducing S. 1399 that honors W.J. Scherle, as well as commending the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I urge all Members to support its passage. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.