Nita Lowey

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report on the product liability reform. This bill benefits those who place profits above the health and safety of the American public, and it should be defeated. Let's look at some of the real-life consequences that this ill- considered legislation would have. Currently, there are approximately 1 million women who have silicone breast implants. To date 100,000 of them have suffered real harm from these devices. Although these women were told that the implants were safe, many began to leak and break--exposing the women to the silicone inside. If this bill is passed, implant manufacturers will be exempted from liability, and thousands of the women who are ill will be prevented from recovering damages. This bill will hurt American women in other ways. The legislation eliminates joint and several liability for noneconomic losses--which means that if a housewife from my district and Donald Trump are both injured by the same defective product, Donald Trump will be able to recover much more money for injuries. That's wrong Mr. Speaker--we must not make it more difficult for women to recover damages from the companies of defective products. I would also like to bring to my colleagues' attention a very shocking unintended result of this bill. Mothers Against Drunk Driving opposes this bill because it will cap punitive damages that can be enforced against those who serve alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated persons and minors. Last year, this House passed a measure that I introduced that will finally get tough on underage drunk driving. That measure is now the law of the land and States that do not have zero tolerance policies for teens who drink and drive are in the process of adopting them. We must not now take away one of the biggest disincentives bar owners have to serving minors by passing this bill. We must not send a mixed message to Americans about drunk driving. My colleagues, this bill says to companies that making defective products is just another cost of doing business. We must demand that companies take responsibility for their actions--just as we demand that individuals do. Those who put profits ahead of their fellow human beings do not deserve our protection.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, next month thousands of young people will participate in the March of the Living Program. I would like to take this opportunity to commemorate the participants and organizers of this very special program. Since 1988, the March of the Living Program has provided over 20,000 young people from around the world with an extraordinary method of Holocaust education. Participants of the program are taken to visit the concentration camps in Poland to view the sites of Nazi atrocities. They are shown the gas chambers, crematoria, and piles of personal articles confiscated from the children who perished in the camps. From there, the participants go to Israel to see the great triumph of those who survived the Holocaust and went on to create a nation. Although this program will be a unique and wonderful opportunity for the participants, it will not receive the support of the Austrian Government. The Austrian Government has chosen not to participate in the program, and is thereby passing up an opportunity to affirm its commitment to the preservation of Jewish heritage. I am very disappointed in this decision, and have written to the Austrian President and Ambassador asking them to reconsider this decision. The March of the Living will go forward this year, and it will be a profound experience for all those participating. It will be truly unfortunate, however, if the Austrian Government is not one of those participants.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. Proponents of H.R. 2854 say that it represents reform of our antiquated federal agriculture policy. But I say it is business as usual. Proponents of the bill say it reforms the peanut program--one of the most glaring examples of misguided agriculture policy. But that is simply not true. The cosmetic reforms included in this bill do not sufficiently address my concerns with this program. The peanut program supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 million American consumers and taxpayers. The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per year in higher peanut prices to consumers. The bill also lacks real reform of the sugar program. Like the peanut subsidy, the sugar program artificially inflates the price of sugar in America for the benefit of a handful of sugar growers. American consumers pay $1.4 billion more each year for products with sugar in them as a result of this program. That is a total consumer price tag of almost $2 billion for these two programs. This conference report also includes a provision that was placed in the bill during conference without having been debated or amended on the floor. The bill creates the mis-named Safe Meat and Poultry Inspection Panel to review and evaluate food safety procedures, adding another hurdle to the Food Safety and Inspection Service's efforts to protect the U.S. food supply. Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. There are 4,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses annually in the U.S. as a result of food-borne pathogens. FSIS is trying to cut down this number, but they have been facing opposition every step of the way. This provision is another in a series of attempts to hinder their efforts. It was not in the House or Senate versions of the Farm Bill. It was not debated. It was not amended. Yet here it is in the conference report. This is no way to legislate. Just last week Mike Taylor, the Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food Safety, came before the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee and told us how difficult it is for his agency to accomplish its goals of protecting our food supply with the limited budget it has been given. Now we are going to shoulder them with the fiscal burden of this panel. Unacceptable! Mr. Speaker, this conference report is filled with provisions that send our agriculture policy in the wrong direction. We can do much, much better. I urge my colleagues to defeat this bill. Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard], our distinguished colleague. (Mr. POSHARD asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1833. Mr. Speaker, we are here today debating this extreme bill because the Republican leadership is absolutely committed to eliminating the right to choose. The pro-life majority in this House has restricted abortion rights throughout the last year--and this bill is yet another step on the road to the back alley. This legislation will criminalize abortion, harass doctors, and prevent women from getting the medical care they need. Families facing a late-term abortion are families that want to have a child. These couples have chosen to become parents, and only face terminating the pregnancy due to tragic circumstances. Terminating a wanted pregnancy at this stage is agonizing and deeply personal. This procedure is not about choice, It is about necessity. Let me tell you about Claudia Ades, who lives in Sanata Monica, CA. She heard about this bill, and called to ask me if there was anything she could do to defeat it. As Claudia said so passionately, ``This procedure saved my life and my family.'' Three years ago, Claudia was pregnant and happier than she had ever been. However, 6 months into her pregnancy she discovered that the child she was carrying had severe fetal anomalies that made its survival impossible, and placed Claudia's own life at risk. After speaking to a number of doctors, Claudia and her husband finally concluded that there was no way to save the pregnancy. ``This was a desperately wanted pregnancy,'' Claudia said, ``But my child was not meant to be in this world.'' Those of us with healthy children can only imagine the horror that Claudia felt when she received the news about her condition. It is the news that all mothers pray every day they will never hear. But, in those tragic cases where families do hear this horrible news, who should decide? The one thing that I know for sure is that the decision should not be made by Congress. At that horrible, tragic moment, the Government has no place. Now, the Republican leadership could have made this a better bill by including real life and health exceptions. Not the sham life exception that's included in this bill--written by the Republican presidential candidate from Kansas who never met an abortion restriction that he didn't support. President Clinton even indicated that he would sign the bill if it contained real exceptions. But the Republican leadership doesn't want the President to sign this bill--they want him to veto it. This entire debate is a pay-off to the Christian Coalition and an exercise in election year political theatre. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton's veto pen is the only thing protecting American women from the back alley. H.R. 1833 is an extreme bill that will put the lives of American women at risk. I urge its defeat.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, in the last Congress we passed an historic crime bill that included a ban on assault weapons, and it was supported by 80 percent of the public. It is hard to believe that we are here today. So why are we here? Because the NRA donated a lot of money to Republican campaigns, and the NRA expects a return on its investment, and now it wants its money's worth. This is absolutely wrong. It is a wrong time for us to turn our back on our Nation. Just yesterday in my district in Eastchester, NY, a lunatic killed a police officer in the line of duty with a high-powered rifle. The police do not need less protection from maniacs with guns; they need more.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Burr amendment. The Burr amendment will allow an outdated program to continue, and it will do real harm to American nurses. We must protect American nurses and American workers. The H-1A program, which passed in 1990, allowed an unlimited number of foreign nurses to enter the United States. However, the medical industry has changed radically in the last six years. Not only do we no longer need the foreign nurses, we actually have a potential glut of nurses in this country. Simply put, we have more nurses than we have jobs. The hospital industry has gone through a massive restructuring. As hospitals have merged, closed or ``scaled back'' in order to become more competitive, the number of nursing positions has decreased. At the time time, the pool of nurses is actually increasing. We simply do not have a need or the jobs for the H-1A nurses. The H- 1A visas sunsetted on September 1, 1995. We should allow the program to end. Think about the American nurses who have dedicated their lives to helping sick people. Let's face it, people do not become nurses to get rich or to become famous--they do it to help others. The least that we can do is to make sure that American nurses have jobs. I urge you to defeat the Burr amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Roybal-Allard] and the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro] for organizing this tribute to women from around the country who have made extraordinary contributions to their communities. I am here to honor an outstanding constituent, Amy Paulin of Scarsdale, NY. Amy, like myself, the mother of three children, has dedicated herself to the women and families of Westchester County. In fact, Amy was selected the 1995 Woman of the Year by a coalition of women in my district. The list of Amy's community activities fills pages and in each role she has epitomized the concept of citizenship. Amy was president of the League of Women Voters for 3 years. While Amy was president, the league registered 2,000 voters, and issued nonpartisan Voters Guides to 85 percent of the voters in Westchester County. In addition, the league sponsored debates for political candidates and was actively involved in shaping local legislation. One of the highlights of Amy's presidency was her success at urging the creation of the Westchester County Board of Legislators Task Force on Families. When Amy realized that no board committees addressed women and children's issues, she brought it to the attention of the chair of the county board. Then, Amy led a successful lobbying effort that convinced the board that such a task force was indeed necessary. Amy is currently the only citizen-member of the task force, which just released a very important report on Westchester County's response to child abuse. In addition to Amy's superb work with the league, she sits on the board of: The Westchester Children's Association, the Westchester Women's Agenda, the YWCA of White Plains, the Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, the UJA-Federation Scarsdale Women's Campaign, and the Scarsdale Middle School P.T.A. As you can see, Amy's commitment to women and families is very serious. Westchester County has benefited from her tireless efforts on behalf of our families. I am honored to have the opportunity to honor Amy Parlin as Woman of the Year.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith amendment. History has shown us what happens when the United States closes its doors to the refugees of the world. In 1939 930 Jews fled Nazi Germany for Cuba on the ship the St. Louis. Although the refugees had valid visas, the Cuban Government refused to let the St. Louis dock when it arrived in Havana. From Havana the St. Louis sailed to the United States. Sailing close to the Florida shore, the passengers could see the lights of Miami. But the United States Government refused to let the refugees land--because we had a refugee cap. U.S. Coast Guard ships even patrolled the waters to ensure that no one on the St. Louis swam to safety. So the passengers of the St. Louis were forced to return to Europe-- where they were sent to the Nazi death camps and murdered. This incident is a blight on our Nation's history--and it must never happen again. Mr. Chairman, innocent people die when the United States closes its doors to refugees. The United States must always be a safe haven for persecuted victims. I urge you to strike the refugee cap that is contained in this bill. Support the Smith amendment. Lives depend on it.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that had I been here for rollcall No. 62, I would have voted ``nay.'' I was detained at a Committee on Appropriations hearing, and, therefore, I missed the vote.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the MacBride Principles and the provision in H.R. 1561 that embodies the MacBride Principles. Regrettably, the provision dealing with the MacBride Principles is one of the only positive portions of this terribly flawed bill. As a result, I will not be able to cast my vote in support of H.R. 1561. The MacBride Principles consist of nine fair employment principles. They are a code of conduct for United States companies doing business in Northern Ireland, and they call for nondiscriminatory United States investment in Northern Ireland. I strongly support greater accountability of organizations receiving United States assistance in Ireland, and I have demanded that these organizations comply with the MacBride Principles. During consideration of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996, I offered an amendment that urged all organizations receiving funding from the International Fund for Ireland to comply with the MacBride Principles. My amendment was included in the final version of the bill that was signed into law by President Clinton earlier this year. Recipients of United States aid must not be allowed to violate the human rights--including religious freedoms--of Catholics living in Northern Ireland. I offered my language on the MacBride Principles in the Foreign Operations bill out of deep concern for continued religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. But now, the MacBride Principles provision in this bill is being held hostage by the other unacceptable provisions of H.R. 1561. The administration has said it will veto this bill, and I will vote against it. H.R. 1561 does not eliminate all of the restrictions placed on international family planning assistance in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act. These harmful provisions will severely impact women and children in developing nations. In fact, a study released last week by several populations assistance groups estimates that the decrease in international family planning funds will result in an increase of more than 1.5 million abortions worldwide. The bill also forces the administration to consolidate or eliminate several critically important foreign affairs agencies: it undercuts the United States ability to maintain its interests overseas, and it negatively impacts the U.S. leadership role in the United Nations by providing inadequate levels of funding and requiring unworkable notification requirements. Mr. Speaker, the MacBride Principles should be a cornerstone of United States foreign policy in Northern Ireland. That is why I strongly support efforts to tie U.S. assistance to these Principles. However, H.R. 1561 is a bad bill. I would hope that when President Clinton vetoes H.R. 1561--as he has promised to do--we can pass the MacBride Principles as an independent piece of legislation.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Speaker, at this difficult hour we stand in solidarity with the people of Israel and reaffirm our commitment to their peace and security. We unequivocally condemn the reign of terror that has forever silenced the voices of so many of our children. We grieve for the victims--and we pray that no Israeli mother will have to bury a son or a daughter ever again. We remember the words of Yitzhak Rabin and say: ``Enough of blood and tears. Enough.'' The terrible events of the last weeks have profoundly shaken us all. We yearn so desperately for peace--yet today we are at war--at war against terror--at war against the enemies of peace. There can be no noncombatants in this battle. Israel has declared war on Hamas. Yasser Arafat must now become a full partner in this struggle. Nothing less is acceptable. There must be no more speeches in Arabic extolling the martyrs--no more terrorists arrested during the day and released at night. The covenant calling for Israel's destruction must be revoked--compliance with the declaration of principles must be total. This is Yasser Arafat's moment of truth-- he must prove in word and deed that he is fully committed to peace. Either he is our ally in the war against terror--or he is our eneny. This week President Clinton will travel to Egypt to participate in a historic world summit against terrorism. The President's message will be simple and clear: There can be no compromise with terror. The days of talk are over--it is time for action. Hamas and Islamic Jihad must be eliminated. States that sponsor and finance terrorism--Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria--must be isolated. Our allies must join us in cutting off all sources of funding and support for terrorism. Yitzhak Shamir wrote many years ago that, ``Israel's twin goals have always been peace and security.'' We cannot have one without the other--and that is why we must continue to strive for both in the difficult days ahead. Thank you.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I do not even understand why we are voting on this bill today. It is the same legislation that the President has vetoed before. What this legislation does to our schools is completely unacceptable. If enacted, this legislation would make the largest education cut in the history of our Nation. Let me repeat that. This legislation makes the largest education cut in the history of our Nation. My State of New York will lose $300 million, or 15 percent of its Federal education funding, if this legislation is enacted. New York City will lose over $67 million in Title I funds alone. In New York City, 60,000 schoolchildren will lose basic math and reading instruction, 2,700 teaching jobs will be eliminated. This bill also, unbelievably, eliminates the summer jobs program. In New York City, some 24,000 teens will be left without any meaningful employment or the opportunity to earn money. There are simply no State or local funds to make up for these cuts in Federal aid without increasing property taxes. Mr. Chairman, frankly, I do not understand why we are even voting on this bill. It's the same legislation that the President has vetoed before. What this legislation does to our schools is completely unacceptable. If enacted, this legislation would make the largest education cut in the history of our Nation. Let me repeat that--this legislation makes the largest education cut in the history of our Nation. My State of New York will lose $300 million or 15 percent of its Federal education funding if this legislation is enacted. New York City will lose over $67 million in title I funds alone. In New York City, 60,000 school children will lose basic math and reading instruction. Some 2,700 teaching jobs will be eliminated. This bill also eliminates the summer jobs program. In New York City this summer, 24,000 teens will be left without any meaningful employment or the opportunity to earn money. There are simply no State or local funds to make up for these cuts in Federal aid without increasing property taxes. Is that the Republican agenda--to force cities and States to pick up more of the tab? to increase local property taxes? Mr. Chairman, we should not be considering this legislation today. It is an insult to our students, their families, our teachers and our schools.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strike the extreme provision in this bill that would allow States to deny Medicaid-funded abortions to victims of rape and incest. I understand that there may be some confusion about what this amendment does, so let me be very clear. This amendment preserves current law by leaving the underlying Hyde amendment in place. It is this bill that changes current law by giving States the right not to fund abortions in the case of rape and incest. Quite simply, this bill gives States the green light to eliminate Medicaid funding of abortions for the most vulnerable members of our society, impoverished victims of rape and incest. This provision callously victimizes victims and subjects women who have been raped to further indignity. It is draconian and it is unfair. Let me be very clear, this provision has nothing to do with States' rights. The States right argument is just a smoke screen. This is not about the rights of States. It is about the rights of women, the right to choose. The Medicaid statute does not give States the right to pick and choose which procedures they will cover and which they will not. A State's participation in Medicaid is voluntary, but once a State chooses to participate, it must comply with Federal statutory and regulatory requirements. Time after time, in case after case, the Federal courts have ruled that States must fund abortions in cases of rape and incest. Since 1993, Federal courts in 13 States have rejected challenges brought by States that did not want to comply with the rape and incest language. There is not a single case in which a court has sided with States that did not want to comply. It is very simple. Under current law, States must fund Medicaid abortion in the case of rape, incest, and life of the pregnant woman. Just so we are clear, this is not just the way the Clinton administration has interpreted the law, it is the law, and it has been interpreted by the courts. This provision does not clarify existing law as its proponents claim. It overturns existing law. Mr. Chairman, American women have watched in horror as this extreme Congress has eroded their rights. This will be the 22d vote we have taken on the abortion issue, a new record, and of all these votes, of all the restrictions this Congress has imposed on American women, this one is the most cruel. This bill says to rape victims, you must have your rapist's child. It tells incest victims, you must have your father's child. This Congress must not turn its back on American women in their hour of greatest need. Let us have the decency to ensure that impoverished victims of rape and incest will have the right to choose. I urge support for the Lowey-Greenwood-Morella amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to divide my time equally with the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Greenwood], and that he be permitted to control that time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Maloney]. (Mrs. MALONEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. LOWEY

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Neumann].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my colleague, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to respond to my colleague from Florida. In addition to candy bars, we are talking about peanut butter, we are talking about salted peanuts, we are talking about the kind of peanuts that are distributed on airplanes. And, in fact, there was a study. The Public Voice for Food and Health Policy study of peanut processors between 1989 and 1993 showed clearly that as the Government set the price, peanuts went up, the retail price went up. As the Government set it, the price went down, the retail price went down. So I think it is important to note that if the peanut industry is very competitive and, in fact, if their costs go down, it does affect, according to these studies, the price of the actual jar of peanut butter and the Snicker bar. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Jacobs].

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are offering the Shay-Lowey-Castle-Jacobs-Neumann- Torres amendment to phase out a program that epitomizes wasteful inefficient government spending. The peanut program supports peanut quota holders at the expense of 250 million American consumers and taxpayers. This outdated program is based on a system reminiscent of feudal society. Quotas to sell peanuts are handed down from generation to generation, and two-thirds of the quota owners do not even grow peanuts themselves. In fact, it is amazing to me that in the United States of America, because of this antiquated system, farmers are actually told and it is made clear to them that they cannot grow and sell their peanuts domestically. They can grow the peanuts if they do not have a quota, but then they have to sell them abroad. The GAO has estimated that this program passes on $500 million per year in higher peanut prices to consumers, and the program costs the Federal Government $120 million every year in administrative costs. What does that mean to the average American family? As a mother who made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for her three children for many, many years, I find it unacceptable that it forces American families to pay an average of 33 cents more for this jar of peanut butter. In other words, when you go into a store and you are making a lot of peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, you are paying 33 cents more. And that is not peanuts. Eliminating this program will lower the price of peanuts and put dollars and cents back in the pockets of American families. A Public Voice study which tracked the price of peanuts set by the Government and the retail price of peanuts showed that, as the Government price goes up, so does the retail price. And as the Government price goes down, the retail price follows suit. Lowering the price of peanuts is also good for American jobs. I want to made it clear to my colleagues that lowering the price of peanuts is good for American jobs because the price of peanuts in the United States is so high, peanut butter and candy bar manufacturers are leaving the United States to open up plants in Canada and Mexico. The peanuts can be purchased there at the world market price, half the U.S. price, and the finished product could then be brought into the United States and sold here. We must, in my judgment, lower the artificially high price of domestic peanuts to save these manufacturing jobs. If you have ever had a Snicker, look at the back of that Snicker. It says made in Canada. That is why the list of groups supporting elimination of the program is long and diverse: from the Heritage Foundation to Public Voice, from the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens for a Sound Economy to the Consumer Federation of America. My colleagues who support the status quo in the peanut program will say that the bill we are debating today already contains real reform of the peanut program. In my judgment, that is just simply not true. The cosmetic reforms that were included in this bill do not address our concerns with this program and could very well result in even higher consumer prices by forcing the Secretary of Agriculture to further restrict domestic production of peanuts. Our amendment addresses the real problems with the peanut program. Clearly, when the Congress is cutting mass transit subsidies, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, school lunches, Medicare, we cannot ignore programs that really do not work. I urge my colleagues to stand up for American consumers, support this amendment. It is good policy and it is true reform. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just want to reiterate a few points on why I support this amendment. Not just because it is a feudal system that has been in place for years, not to help the small farmers but to help the wealthy farmers. It is documented today that two-thirds of the quota holders do not even farm. If we are really interested in protecting the small farmer, this is not it. Two-thirds of the quota holders do not even live on a farm. This is a competitive industry. Mr. Chairman, this is a competitive industry, and in my judgment, if we are talking about saving jobs and keeping people on the farm, let us remember these Snickers bars that are produced in Canada. The world price is $350 a ton, and we have artificially kept this up to above $600 a ton. The industry is moving, moving to Canada and moving to Mexico. So it seems to me, and I have confidence in our farmers, confidence in our country. If we really want to keep the farmers here, then we should allow them to be competitors. The non-quota holders should be given the opportunity to be competitive as well. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, which gradually reduces the subsidy so we can continue to be competitive in the world economy.