other groups to incorporate into some of these nutrition education strategies ways to really impact diet. we went, along with the department of health and human services are partnered again for the 2015 version of the dietary guidelines for all americans. that commission or that committee, advisory committee is under way right now. ..

to note that. finally let me say on our i didn't touch on our other nutrition programs among the 15, we know unfortunately they're needed more than ever now than. they didn't exist during the last depression. these programs are really important. they are important that they are responsive as well. responsive not only in terms of individual need but what's going on in the american economy. and i mention that very importantly as it pertains to the s.n.a.p. program. s.n.a.p. had a significant growth during this recession, extended recession. both because the number of

people who qualify, who were citizens or legal u.s. residents under certain incomes grew by millions but also states took action, 40 something states in particular, made special efforts to really simplify access for eligible consumers in their respective states. it went up because of what was going on in the american economy. had it been block granted as some proposed more recently it would have been basically unable to respond to the increase of tens of millions of people that came on the program. so i mention that whenever i speak to groups because it's important that we're mindful of that. as i say, we're now seeing a million fewer people on the s.n.a.p. program, reflecting the fact that there are impacts coming along in the american economy and hopefully that will

continue. so with that, that's a brief overview and i am happy to look forward to questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] so we're going to take a few questions right now and chris wall drop will have a microphone for those that want to ask questions. i urge you to please wait for the microphone before you ask your question. and we'll get secretary, undersecretary concannon here here at the podium again. questions?

>> thank you. thank you for being here, mr. undersecretary. i want to thank for the sense in s.n.a.p. and all the good work in schools to have the healthier and competitive foods and reduce junk food marketing in schools. it is nice to write positive comments to the usda about those issues. >> great. >> i'm sara borne from food and water watch. there has been a series in s.n.a.p. and other media outlets to s.n.a.p. retailers paying their employees such low wages that they're essentially double-dipping. that their own employees have to rely on s.n.a.p. to feed their families healthy miles and as we're starting to see more discussion about raising the minimum wage i wonder how you can comment on that improve the health of nation's low end consumers getting them better income and stronger safety net? >> thank you very much for that question. i often to say to people we can

not solve the problem of hunger in this country through nutrition programs alone. what puts people at risk of going hungry is income and as the questioner raised, unfortunately the the minimum wage has not kept up. i go back to my days in state government where if one worked 40 hours a week at minimum wage it could bring you up above the federal poverty level. it hasn't been that for some time now and that's why, an enthusesy as tick supporter of the president's effort to increase minimum wage through contracted employees. i much rather as he would, i would much rather see federal law move the minimum wage up. we've seen states in different areas of the country, some of the states that i have lived in the past have increased minimum wage above the federal wage and all of the naysayers who say it will cost jobs and we'll lose

jobs with some very limited impacts in that regard, in general it puts more money into the economy and more hand into the hands of families. i was struck, one of "the washington post" writers here recently just got a pulitzer prize for a serries that he had written about the food stamp program and people going hungry in different parts of the country but one of his segments related to a couple up in rhode island who were working in the supermarket. one worked at night. one worked in the day time. between the two of them they weren't getting, neither was getting 40 hours a week. and then their pay was pretty limited. even though they were on a treadmill, they couldn't really get above, even with their effort, couldn't get above the poverty level and for those of us living here in d.c. you may recall that in the month of

december two new walmart supermarkets opened in the district for the first type. i think they had a combination of 600 full and part-time jobs. they had 23,000 job applicants for it. so it is not as if there is not an an appetite and desire upon millions of americans to get into the workforce. it is limited by one, the number of jobs, but also, when they get into the workforce, limited by the reimbursement rates. in the s.n.a.p. program these days, again, a qualitative change from those years again when i served in state government. now 41% of residents, children and adults who live in a s.n.a.p. or a household receiving s.n.a.p. benefits, 41% of them, at least one of the adults is the in the workforce. that is a significant increase, if you go back to the 1990s

and early 2000s. that is a significant increase of people in the workforce. typically in the past the number was lower than that. what it reflects is again people getting part-time work or being paid minimum wage, or low wages. so, i fully agree with you. i think there needs to be a commitment both to raise wages in 24 country, that i am confident, you know, i read economists as well, that could make a difference in terms of access to food. the 37 million people i referenced going to food pantry, it is not, the public, if you haven't visited a food pantry in this area, you may have a sense well, it is for homeless people or people just in the last stretch, been made homeless or desperately poor. if those folks are served in those pantries but you will see many, many people, particularly

as the month stretches on, who are coming in, many in the workforce, many who are on receiving snap or food stamp benefits running out of benefits as the month goes on. there are lots of people, and there needs to be a much fuller discussion, in the country about one, what they're paid and impact that would have as well as on giving more people opportunity. you can't magically say let's do less for everybody and somehow it will all work out that people will have access to jobs or sources of food, consistency. it doesn't work that way. [applause] >> i think we have time for one more question and then we'll need to wrap up for the next session. >> thank you. thank you for those remarks. my name is yvonne brawner, and

i'm from morgan state university. i would like to thank usda for rolling out the iom recommended food changes for wic. that increases the quality of the foods that are now available, the fruits and vegetables of course have been out for a while. the whole wheat and foods that are recommended along with yogurt. so the question though is not just what's available but what will the clients choose. and so my question is, how are we going to help our clients really go into the market and make the right choices, the nutrition education component? especially as it looks to the people who are the clients to be involved in that educational effort? >> that's a great question. not unlike what sam kass referenced on the school meals, it's one thing to have a

healthier menu which we have but we want that menu consumed, so we incorporated a number, practice, offer, versus served, instead of handing a student a plate that has been preselected by somebody in the food line. it is, we encourage schools universally, give the child, give the student opportunity to choose and in the wic program, similarly in this regard, we are, i'm very encouraged by something i've seen in, on the west coast that is rarely, there are far fewer opportunities in that regard in the eastern part of the u.s. these are what are referred to particularly in california, nevada, arizona, these are what are referred to as wic-only stores. these are stores that only sell healthy foods, only sell foods that are in the wic food package. and i was in a store in

sacramento, one of these wic-only stores in a very poor area of sacramento a year before last. i wanted to see the store first-hand because these were, as i said, an entity one generally does not see in other parts of the u.s. the can fornash -- california is the most, vast majority of them. of the several other states, oklahoma has one. there is one opening in new york city soon, a single one but the idea of the store, this parent came in, a man, with two very young toddlers hyped him and the staff from the wic store reached over and either, i don't know if it was a tangerine or a plum but handed each of those little kids a piece of fruit, something healthy. so there was no temptation going through the checkout aisle for those kids. it was just healthy foods. i thought what a terrific thing and in very challenged neighborhood. well, our, that is not a

universal answer but, we have food descertificates, i think -- deserts, everybody is away where you are hard-pressed to get fruits and vegetables. you might get corner store bodegas but you may have severe limitations how many healthy foods are available in those stores. i recently had a discussion with one of the major health system providers in ohio around concerned about food deserts in some of the cities and i said that may be a model to think about. the community may not sustain a full-sized supermarket. but it may be, depending upon the location of your wic clinics, it might be, there might be a very important synergy. our experience with wic stores by the way, nationally there are under 50,000 stores authorized for wic and when we increase

that food requirement in wic, now almost three years ago, there was some concern we would lose store participation because we heard the old chess nut of, gee, this community won't buy these foods. they won't support these fruits and vegetables. guess what? i don't think we lost a half dozen stores nationally, and the reports we got consistently across the country was the access for those healthy foods for wic participants at its core very important has had the effect of making those foods available to other residents of those respective communities. it is a way of systemizing, it is not a single answer but it's a helpful answer. that combined with a nutrition education. as you know, wic has a requirement for, to engage the parents, the households, in many of the wic programs across the country, the nutrition education

that is available through the s.n.a.p. ed program has been incorporated in or attached to what is being provided to wic households. so it's a combination of again the direct one-on-one counseling, the availability of the foods through the system and reinforced by professional counseling for healthier eating. so thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you, chris. good morning, everyone. welcome to our panel. this will be a time to explore how the millenials will shape and even dictate the future of

our food system. now everyone, i'm sure, has heard a lot about this generation. millenials are generally in their 20s and early 30s. birth years can differ depending who you ask but generally they were born between the years of 1980 and 1995. so we have a great panel assembled here today who will share a variety of insights about this generation from social and religious views to health and wellness attitudes down to exactly what they're eating at any given point of the day. so allow me to introduce our panel. we will start with paul taylor. paul is the executive vice president of special projects at the pew research center where he oversees demographic, social and generational research. paul also is the author of a new book called, "the next america." and the book examines generations and the country's

changing demographics. he will give us a good overview how to look at millenials from that 50,000-foot view. following paul we have harry balzer from npd. not many people in the u.s. has followed americans actual eating patterns as long as harry. chief industry analyst and vice president at npd. he is a national expert on food and diet trends. is author of annual report on eating patterns in america which actually celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2010 so he knows all about everything you are eating and of course what our millenials are eating. following harry we'll here from marsha greenblum. marsha is the senior director of health and wellness communications at the international food and information counsel. i'm sure many of you know it as ific. marcia will help us understand how it to look at millenials when it comes to communicating

about health and wellness issues. finally we have kate wyatt and kate is a senior vice president and group head for edelman's washington, d.c. based food and nutrition team. kate has touched virtually every aspect of the food scene, if you will, food and nutrition, from working with commodities to national brands to restaurants and to retailers. she will share with us some information about millenials at a brand level, at a very specific attitude and behavior perspective from research edelman has done and interestingly she will take as you step further and introduce us to generation z, so we'll understand not just where we are with gen-y but where things are headed as we look to the up-and-coming generation. each of our panelists will speak and share some insights. we'll have opportunity for questions. we'll have a good amount of time for questions. i will ask you hold any questions while they speak and once we're concluded, with our

remarks, we will open up the floor and we hope that we'll have a freewheeling discussion. so please come armed with questions. so i will now introduce again, paul taylor and he will share with you some insights from pew research center. >> thank you, cathy, i'm delighted to be here. you're the only speaker this morning will not mention the word food. because i'm not a expert and there are plenty who are. we express our stories in numbers and i'm going to throw a lot of numbers at you in a pretty short period of time. to look at this generation, look at its can demographics, its economic circumstances its political and social views. as cathy said, it's distinctive demographically. when we first started looking at millenials 10 years or so ago, i thought of them as teenagers and

young adults. guess what? the oldest is in his or her early 30s. they're into the workforce and into the electorate and they're forcing a rather distinctive path into adulthood. starts with who they are. more than four in 10 millenials are non-white, compared for example, to our oldest generation, silence, only two in 10 are non-white. in this sense they're a transitional generation. census bureau tells us within 30 years the majority of the country will be non-white. that is one thing quite distinctive demographically. they're a large generation. baby boomers were famously large generation. we're crashing threshold into old age. this is a very large generation moving into the workforce and electorate. let's find a little bit how they're moving into adulthood. i apologize for this. this is a little bit complicated. these are two charts, one on the left is the percent of people of all ages and darkest line of millenials and next line are the

gen-xers, the green line are the boomers and light green line i guess are the silents. we're looking from '07 to '14 the same age cohort moving through time. what we're learning interestingly politically, we're learning from voting patterns and attitudes are quite liberal and quite democratic but if you ask them you identify with the democratic party, republican party, independent, 50% of the our millenials in the latest survey say independent. we have never seen numbers that high. see a similar pattern if you go to the same chart on the height with what religion are you. we see through the life cycle of millenials we've been tracking through the last seven years, they are about three in 10 say i'm not affiliated with any religion. doesn't mean they're atheist or agnostic. they simply don't choose to identify with a religion. the united states stands out in the world for advanced countries, we are the most religiously devout and

affiliated people in the world but millenials are not as devout or affiliated as their he willers have been, an interesting pattern. there is yet another social institution, anchor institution of society if you will that millenials at least so far are not attached to and ha is called marriage. if you look at millenials today or in 2013, that point they're ages 18 to 32, what share of this group is married? own a quarter. older generations moving up in time, xers in 30s and 40s, boomers 50s, into 60s, the silent generation these are shares who were married back when they were the age that millenials are today. this is a dramatic change and there is a mix of economic and attitudinal data to explain the change. about seven in 10 unmarried millenials say yes, i would like to get married one day. why not?

why hasn't it happened yet? they say i'm not a good marriage partner. i don't have a job. i don't have a career. i don't have the economic foundation. so a lot of this is reflection of their difficult economic circumstances but some of quite frankly is a reflection of the values they place on marriage and children again, we ask questions like this and we see millenials place marriage a little bit lower on the scale of what's important in life than the older generations did at the same stage of the life cycle. just to stay with the economic explanation for a minute, it is a very important part of the lives of this generation. they had the bad luck of copping into the workforce in the mid 00's. we know what happened and we know what happened since, deep recession, we haven't fully recovered. a lot of these kids struggled to find their way. four in 10, five in 10 at some point in their young lives boomeranged back home to live with mom and dad.

maybe some live with you. that turns out to be a pretty good place to hang out if you can't find a job. they have been slow to pass all the traditional milestones of adulthood. finding a job, finding a spouse. buying a home, buying a car. millenials do this at older levels do back when they were their age. they are also the first generation in history to have a lower standard of living anyway you measure. we measure by unemployment, by poverty, by wealth, by income than older adults back at age younger adults are now. they're not attached to traditional anchor institutions of the how do they organize their lives? well, they are the first generation, if you will of digital natives. these amazing things we all hold in our hand. people like me, my jaw still drops all the things i can get with two or three clicks. frankly annoys me if it takes three clicks to get them. for them it is all they have ever known. these smartphones and digital technology and mobile technology

is their indispensable platform for engaging with the world. for information acquisition and for building networks. so while they don't have some of the traditional anchors of affiliation with institutions, boy, they build networks and these things allow you to build your own network. somebody described them as the precapernicum generation. the world really can resolve around them because they organize their world where they place themselves in the center of it. they take selfies of themselves and on it goes. people give them the rap of being narcissistic. i sense that is little unfair to them. i suspect any generation grew up with this that allowed you to place yourself at center of the world would take advantage of that. decide among yourselves, these are people who use facebook and these are the network of friends. either there has been a quantum leap in human friendliness over the last generation or so, or there is something about the nature of these technologies that younger adults are able to

use and organize. i suspect that's the case. so here again i apologize. there is a lot of data on here. here's a question we ask people of all generations. here are some ways you might think of describing it yourselves. we see the interesting patterns. you think of yourself as supporter of gay rights? again the darker green is millenials. they stand out very much different from the older generation. yes, they say i do. do you think of yourself as patriotic person. again millenials stand out less so than older adults. religious person, less so than older adults. this a little bit of a surprise, environmentalist, there's a gap. i don't, we know from other, we know from other data that millenials are sensitive to issues like climate change and environment but i suspect what we're picking up is a little bit of resistance to identify with a cause, with an institution. on a couple of social issues

there have about been dramatic changes in our society. again the pew research center surveys these kind of issues all the time and i think it's fair to say over the last decade the change in public opinion toward same-sex marriage has been breathtakingly fast. and here you see support for same-sex marriage, how it has moved over the last 10 or 12 years and you see it's gone up among every generation but you see millenials started at a higher level and have gone to a higher level still. so, some of the change here, and you see this on this issue and you will see it on the next one as well is the story of generational replacement. i will tell that story in a moment this is part of the drama of demographic and generational change. the young come in. they become part of the electorate. they become part of the economy. the old move on. as those happen, it is the values of the young that become more important and more incented. you see this as well in growing

support for marijuana legalization. we know that that, that is an issue that is changing now around the country. again, this is a little hard to read. here we go back all the way to 1969, so the time frame is different here. so the millenials only sort of come in at the very end. they are that very sharp line with much higher levels of support. some of you boomers may be amused long-term trend among boomers which back in the '60s and '70s they're all for it. they go into a big dip, maybe because they have kids at home, who knows, but kids are out from under and they rebounded and returned on that particular, on that particular score. you know, there are some, there are some social and political issues, button issues in the news a lot, such as abortion and gun control where we don't see generational differences. while it is the case on the classic questions of do you support a big government and i think one of the, one of the,

chris asked me to give some details on support for programs for the poor, for example, there is, there is no question millenials are more supportive of big government. more conventionally liberal, willing to call themselves liberal. not that many americans do call themselves liberal. classic values questions. do you think the government should do more to help the poor or the poor should do more to help themselves? which is closer to your view? millenials, it is not a huge difference, millenials are more inclined to say government should do more to help the poor. if you look at race breakdowns there, it is not clear that white millenials are that different from older whites on that question. nonetheless, when you add it all up, this again is a complicated chart, but the orange line is expressing votes of 18 to 29-year-olds for the democratic candidate in every presidential election since 1972. the blue line is expressing the

votes of all 65 and overs in every presidential campaign since 1972. so what you see is throughout the '80s, '90s and early 00s there was very little wage gap between the younger and older adults voted. as millenials come into the electorate with the last two presidential cycles, particularly last two presidential elections with barack obama on the ballot you see the biggest age gap the way young and old voted at anytime in our history. . .

you have kids, you pay taxes, you're more of a stake in the system and you're more likely to vote. millennials haven't yet gotten into the. 18% of the vote, 27% of the eligible electorate, by 2020, six years from now, millennials will be 38% of the eligible electorate. if you think about who they are in the economy and then the electorate, they are indeed the future. the attitudes whether there's no assurance that lock-in and as we learned earlier, they are a little bit, i don't want to necessarily call myself a democrat or republican that it's clear that they bring a pretty liberal set of views. here's my last slide which is an

intriguing one and i'm not sure i know quite what to make of it. this is a classic question asked for decades. question about social trust. the question goes something like this but i think it's almost word for word. generally speaking which is a people can be trusted or you can't be too careful when you're dealing with other people? this is the share who say buy generation people can be trusted. i didn't millennials, this goes back 25 years. millennials are just coming in to the last four or five administrations they start out with very low levels of social trust. this is an interesting finding and it may comport with findings that social science, correlations of social science have made about this language is that minority's and people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale tend to be less trusting of others because they often feel they are invulnerable to situations and they are less well fortified to deal with the consequences of

misplaced trust. this doesn't necessarily mean that millennials are alienated from society. we have other ways of measuring that. it doesn't officially named millennials don't think things are going to work out well. we have a lot of measures that say in terms of the own economic futures despite the difficult start, they are actually extremely optimistic, more optimistic than their elders. this is just the incidents of abuse, they don't know anybody. maybe it's that they don't realize someone my age looks at the economic circumstances and says boy, they've had it rough. someone their age doesn't have that to compare with. it's a complex generation. i'll close with what i was amused by, we put out these findings and report a month or six weeks ago, and i think it was the "new york daily news" headline said something like millennials, no jobs, no spouse, no money, no future, no problem.

[laughter] so that's who they are. they are a facet degeneration, and i look forward to listening to what they think about food policy. [applause] >> nice job, paul. thank you, cathy. thanks for inviting me here. it's not often i get to speak to the screw. i end up talking mostly to the people who feed us, the restauranteurs, the supermarkets, the food manufacturers, the agricultural groups. npd is a consumer marketing research firm, we been doing this since 1970. i've been collecting information on how you eat, how the population each. we put out a report. i've been everyone of these myself. i look at every piece of data because you can't talk about how people eat in the country unless you know the data.

this is my passion. this is what i done for the last 36 years now, watched how americans eat. with a number of data services we collect information on. there are two primary ones i want to talk about today. the first one is national eating trans. it's a consumer marketing research service that has 5000 people and keep a record of all foods and beverages consumed for 14 days. everything you eat everywhere. additives, including the only three things i asked the don't want to restore this in 1980 and every day since march 198 other people give me information on how to eat. i got a request to deny people eat how people eat on tax day? yes, i do. [laughter] i don't know what you want to know. i think people get drunk on tax day. you are more clear on that day than any other day. everyday since then we've collected, only three things i don't want to know, didn't think would be important to we don't want to change because the most important thing in trend is to

change what you're collecting. three things. i don't want to know anything about your pepper consumption. i don't want to give a lecture salt consumption. i don't want to anything much water consumption. i for all three of those back then when we started would run as broke. nobody would be interested but as time went on i wish i had the salt and water but we will change that but that's not for this discussion. the second one is pressed, a research service were started my career in 1976. we started collecting information on how people use restaurants, what foods and beverages they buy at restaurants. we have 2400 people every day. the purpose of all this data is to have good information on how people eat. that's a very tough commodity these days. we hear on the news with powdered alcohol. did you see this? powdered alcohol. that's going to go over big.

kronos, people waiting in line for cronut. that's going to go over big. rewatch it people the. we are surrounded by databases. i want to share a couple highlights from this year's report. every six months there's a new food of the decade. i know this because i get questions because i have dated. what percent of the population. the last two years of questions i received, this is my own a '90s as the food of the decade every six months. frozen yogurt, frozen yogurt is coming to her neighborhood. that's good. what was the peak year for frozen yogurt consumption? any idea? 1992. that was the peak year. it's a while before get back to that. we have new yogurt shops opening, blueberries, that's the new superfood, blueberries. i won't disagree. that's one of the top 10 foods. cupcake shops. that's the new -- cupcakes.

hamas. that's the third of the decade, the food of the decade. your privacy and just say this word. i always love the bud lite commercial for the quinoa berger. quinoa. gses. don't eat too much of this. stuff grows out of your hair. these foods reflect who we are. this is the newest one. so i went back looking. the questions came to me. i just didn't americans reading more weird vegetables. you have trans on this? people to report eating weird vegetables. give me some vegetables that you think are weird pictures the trend in the two-week period, had kale at least once in their

diet. 1984 today what you get is another thing is amazing. 1984 today, it's exploding. it's up to 3%. [laughter] gee, this world is changing. what is kale? we saw this probably 15 years ago with spinach. spinach went down the same. i know one thing about research and i'll into this meeting with, here's the top 10 vegetables americans consume. onions is never one. number two is tomatoes. what is kale? what is it we're all looking for? what is the spinach? a new let us. it's let us and let us that the one of the top vegetables would consume. atop a vegetable we consume that we see not used as an ingredient, and we put on the

plate is corn. it's not broccoli? no, it's corn. this country is just looking for new vegetables but getting a new version of the onion, tomato your that's the item that will talk about in the future and will have an impact on how eat in this country. i went and pulled, if you're most interested in millennials, what is it be? i look at the top 10 things reported exclusive of salt, water and pepper tomkinson by 18-30-year-olds last year through november 2013 which should impress you, i have dated through november 2013 of how people eat in this country. here's the top 10 things ranked order not on volume, not that's it's a yes or no. not ingredients. 10 most popular things.

juice. coffee number nine on the list. mostly who is preparing it and where we're getting it from. serial. ready-to-eat serial. salty snacks on the list. chips. potato, i treat potato subway from all vegetables. i treat them alone because it's such a big category. it includes all potatoes, not chips. a glass of milk. not as an ingredient buttermilk, a glass of milk. fifth most by clothing consume. fruits. fruit not as an ingredient. third on the list, vegetables. not the onion, not the lead is, but corner. number two on the list carbonated soft drinks.

you may not like it but this is what we do. the number one thing that we consume as a malignant consume, the number one food in america. any idea what is? who said pizza? that is so wrong. it's a good answer but so wrong. [laughter] the number one thing -- and i can make an argument for more changes have occurred in the american diet over the last 10 years and sandwiches and anything else on that including carbonated soft drinks aren't which are declining. three of the five fastest restaurants you on the one thing, prepare fresh sandwiches because it's the number one thing consumed by this age group. but what does this look like 10 years ago? here we go. here's the list. carbonated soft drinks has dropped one and it is moving downward. juice is moving downward.

have you picked up the one thing that fell off the list? salads have fallen off the list. replaced by coffee. that's a good trade. is in its? as a matter fact, salads overall have been declining. the of peak for having acela, wendy think it occurred? what do you think the peak year for having a main dish salads at a restaurant was? 1989 when 10% of all lunches, 10% of all dinners bought at a restaurant include a salad or today it is about 5%. thank you note america by what they say. try these 10 things. what you think this list will look like 10 years from now? does anybody want to bet with me? one thing is going to fall. i don't know what it's going to be but mostly this is the american diet. 48% of everything this group consumes is one of these 10 items. let me continue on. millennials, i was told a number of times that millennials want it real.

that's what they're looking for real. what was i looking for when i was that age? fake food? can you prove they want real or don't want it real? look at the frozen foods. what's the likelihood of millennials having a frozen item as the main dish as opposed to the side dish of deserts or bread? from 1984 today, so 1984, 6.5% of all main dishes to the 18 to 34-year-olds at the time, which was me when i was that age, were frozen. today it's 13%. my daughter, her main meals are frozen they want it real or do they want it easy first? data mentioned about the sandwiches being made at restaurant. you're too lazy, you can make a sandwich in your house. i want it real. let them worry about fresh bread, fresh tomatoes. they are doing the same thing that everybody wants. they want life to be easy. not just easy but easier.

the single biggest difference between me and my daughter when i was 18-34 year olds, the biggest difference when i was her age and my daughter is now her age, this generation versus the boomers, any idea what the item might be? it is pizza. that's the single biggest difference. it's not the number one food they consume but the biggest difference between that generation, and i show you. in 1984, 30%% of my age group when i was 18 to 34 would have pizza once in a two week pay. today my daughter is 57%. that cap of 31 percentage point, there's no other food. what does pizza say about us? what does pizza say about the millennials? one less thing on millennials. this is probably the single biggest thing affecting the millennials is not affecting anybody else right now but it's the use of restaurants. the group is growing and every other a more millennials but here's the number of meals they bought a restless from 2006

today. even though the group is growing the number of meals is less. this used to be the heaviest restaurant user in america, 18-34 year olds. they defined with the food world would look like for the next 30 years but this group is not having that opportunity because -- what's the reason? it's got to be in. in my mind this is got to be income. i want to go but when i do go out, and i still go out quite a bit, wanted to go out on changing the landscape because you know who is going right now? the group growing now are fast, casual restaurants. they get to the lunch, breakfast and supper. this new what we, i would say they have expanded what fast food can be. that's what lenders are doing to their expanding what fast food can be but it can be a place you can relax, have a good quality meal well aware of wages. the full-service casual dining restaurants are the ones having

a problem because of his crew. i'm going to leave you with one less, and what's the real purpose of all this research you do? i came across this about 20 years ago, a nobel prize winner, purpose of all research. i leave you with this. is to see what everybody else sees, and sometimes seeing is the hardest thing. but once you see you concerted think about the world not thought about before. is my commitment is. if you have any questions, give me a call. i probably have looked at in some way or another. thank you so much. [applause] >> hi, everybody. i'm marcia greenblum and other rich dietitian and the work with

the international food information council, and a lot of this discussion about millennials became really important to me and it really hit home when my son who is currently 24 that his first job, moved away, lives on his own. this is somebody who would, you know, never schedule classes in the morning and would sleep until two in the afternoon. you know that tight. he calls me after working there for a couple of weeks and he says to me, mom, i'm eating cottage cheese for breakfast. and i thought to myself, he's going into the protein world and he's getting -- i said why are you eating protein, what are you eating qaeda chief? mom, because you a cottage cheese, and that must be healthy. so i'm realizing -- cottage cheese. when this age group thinks about what foods are healthy foods, how to eat healthily, they are

thinking on what they know and maybe the role models are the parents, maybe not, maybe it's something they consider a healthful theater. but they are trying to get this information, and they don't have very many sources that are getting this information. they don't have a set of references your it became obvious to me that's part of the challenge. obviously, there's the economy as well and there are time constraints but i think one of the other things is that they also need some help to try to put together all the messages that are probably in their environment that is becoming very overwhelming for them. so why are we addressing the eating behavior in the first place? the journal of this is psychology in 2010 had a quote that said, the millennial generation has poor eating habits including inactivity,

poor nutrition which can contribute to the early development of overweight and obesity. so that's one of the reasons that we need to consider their eating habits. also that two-thirds of the adult population and a third of the children in this country according to the iom, also developing obesity. and obesity is contributing about 190.2 billion costs to our economy. so it's important that we help them to try and understand what healthy eating is. the majority of americans do understand that they have some control. according to the food and health surveys which we did last year, they do recognize that they have some control over what they teach but they're very unable to take back control. so i think the challenge is not

what is a healthy food or what isn't healthy food but understanding how they can harness those influences and challenges that will help them to change those eating behaviors. so why are we looking at millennial eating behaviors? one of the questions you have to ask yourself is what is the evidence that there's a problem? and also, our millennials unique in some way? what do we know about the millennial eating behavior in the first place, and what challenges are they experienci experiencing? what are the resources? where do they get this information? and when they do eat, what hopep do they need to try to figure out what's most helpful for them to eat and how to do it? and head we mostly empower them to get better and eat more healthily? and also as i said, because these people will be the role

models for the next generation, we want to try and help them to understand what healthful eating is so that they will teach their children, and then this whole vicious cycle of childhood obesity will then be ended because they will be teaching the right things to the children because children watch more than they listen. they observe and they model after their parents. so here's what we learned from some research that we did that i will discuss in a moment, is that millennials acknowledge that healthful eating is important. so already we have that it is obstacle is that they do think it's important that they eat, but they do say that they don't always eat healthily and they readily admit that the to many fried foods. they don't eat enough produce. they don't eat enough vegetables. so we are saying that there's an opportunity there to help.

so looking at the literature, what is known about millennial eating habits? well, we do know in 2010 there was a report to that to fight by the generals, 100 retired generals that said the percentage of 17-24-year-olds that do not qualify for the military service was a 75% so that these people were not able to defend our country and mostly it's because of obesity. so that was a major concern for our country. also physicians according to a report in 2012 in the journal of adolescent health do not address obesity and excess weight gain with young adults. they are just not even seeing those decisions but those positions that see it don't seem to address it with these young people. ific health and food service --

survey said they don't get targeted messages that are directly related to them. they do see themselves as eating less healthily. they do recognize that there needs to be something that they can do in their diet but they are not doing it right now. and that they are concerned about other things which may actually persuade them to not eat healthily because they're worried about so many of the other issues that are in their indictmenindictmen t, food safety. they're concerned about the ingredients in the food, and perhaps they are not really focused on just eating a healthful balanced diet. so i think that there i think that they're also more level to certain issues with people's agendas, and they do lack certain skills that the parents or grandparents might have had, and that is a lack of meal planning skills. they generally skip breakfast which causes the need for additional snacking later on in

life. and they are very susceptible to emotional triggers, and not that they cry every time they see fit but frequently when they are tired or when they need a break, they are using their emotions to guide what it's time to eat rather than looking at what their body needs are. so understanding malaysian will eating habits is what we decided to look at, and we want to learn more about millennial current eating habits are and what are the views towards nutrition that will help them develop their eating habits. we wanted to focus more on what influences their decision about what they do eat, what are their barriers to choosing foods that they think are healthier. where are their sources of information, and who do they trust? as we mentioned there is a difficulty in establishing trust. they are the least group that has the least trust in the

messages they seek. understanding their trust factor is a very major part to understanding how to communicate with them. so what we did is we looked at six messages that we tested with parents of young children in 2010 to try and see if some of those also resonate and motivate young people today to eat more healthily. so that was her mission in understanding more about eating habits. we conducted a six focus groups in two places around the country. we selected arkansas because they had one of the highest rates of obesity, and we chose maryland because they had one of the lowest rates of obesity. we did different levels of education to see if education have something to do with their eating habits and their knowledgebase as well as whether they are male or female and a location obviously, we chose to get locations as i mentioned. we did not choose people that were parents because we wanted

to see, once you were a parent i think you establish different eating habits because your home more often and, obviously, you have maybe a ride at what you already established as eating habits. so we were looking at those people that are between the ages of 20-30 come a better living on their own and now preparing food for themselves or trying to eat from foods that they have chosen. i'll give you some key findings. their current eating habits include, they know that, that it's important deed healthily as i mentioned. but in also that they don't often eat as healthily as they should. i think the recognize that they have opportunities to eat better and so they rate themselves as far as their healthfulness of

the eating as a c+. they consider more other diet made up of red meats and fried foods and fewer vegetables or fresh fruit. they do know that there are things that they don't know enough about and they would find it helpful, and one of them is to know more about what's appropriate serving size is to them. we do a lot of messaging about serving sizes on packages, but they recognize that they are not the subject of that information. they don't know how many of those serving sizes are appropriate for them, and, frankly, they do feel hungry after eating. so that they're wondering what's the right size for them personally. they also want to know how many calories per day is appropriate for them for their size, for their nutrient needs. for behavioral challenges they say that they lack time as we

just heard that they're working very hard and they don't have time frequently. convenience to them doesn't just mean convenience as in cooking, because cooking is something that a deathly don't have time for. convenience means eating something in one hand while you're driving or operating something. that's convenience and that's what it's not surprising that which is our number one because you can wrap something up and go with it and that's another thing people find very helpful because anything which you can use one hand and keep on doing something else is a convenience for them. they also -- they don't have money so a lot of the things they think are helpful they don't recognize are unable to them at a lower cost, as we would talk about frozen foods and things they could be buying but it don't think they recognize that they do have nutritional value as good as the fresh foods. ..

they are very involved in the internet. they use a lot of different sources but they do say if they hear information, health professionals they would accept that as something that they feel has some merit and they do feel that they would like more information but it is hard to know who to believe so they are having those challenges. however it they are very

skeptical of messages so understanding how to communicate to them is very important. they try -- trying to reach them in something that is very relatable, somebody who is successful like them, somebody that they will believe. they're trust, what they're going to get out of what you have to say, tell me it relates to me, something i already know. something visual. and they don't like to be told to authorities, and through peers, giving them a feeling that was successful here, short and to the point is a message that would work as better for them than others.

it rates their diets as least helpful of all generations so they do recognize they have some challenges. looking at those messages that will resonate with this group testing the messages we had with finding successful young parents. this resonated with them and added some ideas for what they thought would help. clarity. they don't want things, the messages are unclear, they want clarity. it is applicable to their own lives and something they find motivational. something positive. they don't want to be told don't do because that is an environment they grew up in and a goal that they can achieve and be short and to the point and it is not just millennials. with that is the way we

communicate in general so the two messages we found the most successful about that is fun stuff counts. they like it short, they like the encouragement and they like the fact that they could go to find out more information. they don't want it all laid out. they don't want you telling everything. if you want to know more go here so you engage them to find more information rather than telling them exactly what it is and they like the fact that take charge of your weight gives them a feeling that they can do something, that is encouraging, that will help them. they like cognitive participation, something that makes some think and realize they are in charge. the notable quotes we got from some of these people, there is

always an angle, someone trying to sell something. nothing is ever puli unbiased. i link when we really don't understand they are surrounded by so many messages, all these messages have some kind of point to sell something. they have a hard time sifting through which ones are the ones that held the man which ones are the ones that have more value. when looking at the myplay program we were pretty shocked. this is when i heard somebody in baltimore say i guess i would trust it. it is a government source but it sounds boring to me. i wouldn't be interested in hearing it if this is what they had to say. i would rather stick to things that are going to catch my attention more and that is the challenge. we need to catch their attention, engage them

cognitively so -- address challenges as time and money they are challenged with. [applause] >> i am kate weigle wyatt. thank you for allowing me to be here today and thank you to the panel for sharing really great insights. and to what we already heard here, what you will hear today is we get through 80-95, as cathy mentioned for millennials born between 80-95.

attitudes and behavior is in this group, for quite a few years, and as the title suggested, millennials are not a monolithic bloc, they are what we call a tribe of individuals. that is supported in what we share day. before i dive in i thought i would do a fun exercise with some millennials that i work with. the group by lead is made mostly of millennials and hundreds of the work in our office and across the network of people so i ask what is your food philosophy? i think the answer that you see here, absolutely representative of the dichotomy that we see in this group, that the panel talked-about today. just laughing at some of the

ones that -- i eat organic except when i worked out. i was a vegan because i thought it sounded cool. this is literally these were just sent to me last night among real millennials out there in the world which i thought was interesting. we heard a lot of this today so i quickly moved through this. why they matter is the largest generation. interesting stats, in ten years they will make 75% of our work force. if you don't already work with a millennial you will. the sort of refer to them as al fatah influencers because they are absolutely influencing their parents and piers purchasing decisions. in our study specifically 74% believe they influence the purchasing decision of people

around them. like any generation before and after it them they are unique but what makes this generation unique, paul and harry spoke to this little bit but they come of age during troubling times. they are an incredibly diverse generation. with traditional and non-traditional values their new kind of consumer. this is again years of studying them, counseling clients on how to reach and resonate with millennials. we sort of the find them in a lot of ways but they are smart, they are curious, social, flexible, moral, hedonistic, very values centric which makes them debt averse supported by what we heard today.

they really value community. they have a deep sense of family, this idea of friends and family. and yes, we heard some of it today. they face a lot of challenges. statistics all share. the average millennial has over $28,000 in student loan debts. unemployment rates for this age group for this generation is doubled, nearly doubled. the national average. the median net worth of millennials between 2005-2010, 37%. it is no joke they are facing tough economic times. surprisingly they remain really optimistic in as i said surprisingly traditional values. in fact when we asked them in the 80, 95, specifically with their most important life goals are, hard to read the the top three answers are having a job, owning a home, getting married and starting a family.

really traditional values but as i think we all indicated here more traditionalist with a twisted view will. they want a job that matches their personal passions. they want their role at their job to be individualized. that was supported by some of what marcia just shared which they really want individual attention. they define a career as a collection of experiences adding to my personal value versus something i think some older generations would define as security or longevity. we started with palm mentioning they do want to get married and start a family, pushing back those decisions. a lot of times committing by cohabit fading, this trend of mortgages replacing the role of marriage licenses in some cases.

this dichotomy translates to what their hopes and fears are. they want to settle down without settling. they want to make a difference in the world but they wanted it to be theirs. they have a fear of having an average life. they worry about money, no surprise, they worry about not having enough, losing it, their parents going broke and they really can't stand the thought of being alone. in fact, that fear of being alone translates to their shopping patterns. as marcia just mentioned they are really social and 63% of them view shopping as a social activity. as we are here today to talk about how they shape this, consider that statistic for a second. 63% of millennials are going to the grocery store with a friend or their family. we said they -- alpha influencers influencing the

decisions that i being made at the grocery store and because oftentimes they won't make a decision without the approval of their friends or family, this is all coming in to play. what are they buying when they are shopping? their pretty sensible. our surveys showed millennials willing to pay a premium, not just purchase but willing to pay a premium for health related goods and services, the top of the list $0.81, a premium for health-related items followed closely by electronic and student dining falls in there at 73% so 73% saying they would be willing to pay a premium for food and dying. they don't have the funds to do that but would be willing to pay a premium for it. their attitudes about health and wellness, food and dining, that

73% statistics illustrates as we heard here today a really well-educated group, they are very sophisticated in their views on food. again we hear some of the contrast come through. they want to look good, they want to feel good, they are concerned not only with how they feel but how they look at their appearance. they want to indulge. we saw the quote at the beginning, i eat mostly organic and healthy until i have a cheeseburger and then worked out really hard so they want to indulge. they want it done their way. they want the control. we see them as enthusiastic. they absolutely seafood as a badge of their value and a cool factor. so all that said, caddy alluded to this when she introduced me.

why do millennials really matter? what is interesting is they are not kids anymore. their parents, they have careers. they are the here and now consumer but who is the consumer of tomorrow? we're looking at this next generation, i don't know that we have landed necessarily on the name for them but to me it is fascinating how much this generation of teens differ from millennials and how their attitudes and perceptions will shape the system in really profoundly different ways. i thought it would be fun to spend a few minutes, quickly why they matter, maybe not as big as millennials the estimated to be near 90 million strong by 2013. they are highly influential. interesting to point out the

existing family centric households. parents, friends, grandparents which they live. they are unique. what is particularly unique is they are truly global generation. for the first time in history more people are living in cities or suburbs than rural areas. that will impact how they view the world. as i said i think what makes the most unique is how much their attitudes and values differ from millennials. as i said we spent a lot of time looking into this and i hope to do more quantitative study of the generation but what we found is what we kind of call b i can change the world generation. like millennials they're not only tech savvy but tech intuitive. not only have they not know the

world without computers and the internet, mobile phones and smart phones they haven't had to. it is all that they know. they are aware, influential, reckless, unbounded, fiercely individualistic, maybe more so than millennials, social, smart, socially conscious, extreme multitask errors. marcia greenblum alluded to that. this is the generation you heard this woman put it this way that they are doing their homework with their ipod, earphones on, music playing, t v on in the background, sitting in the kitchen as mom is making dinner and totally focused on their homework and getting it done but this is a complete different world than the one i grew up in where i wouldn't be able to concentrate with all those distractions but these are multi testers. as i said they're being influenced and are influencing

in equal proportion. if anyone in this room know what those words mean, i am super impressed you are that cool. whether these generation's hopes and fears, knowing that is reflective of their hopes and fears but what is interesting, you can see social consciousness come through. they want to understand their role in the larger world. and a appreciate being able to share it. issues that matter to them and their peers manner and they want to raise awareness about those issues. they want to experience new things, explore and discover and amazingly, and they want to be

taken seriously, they don't want to wait until adulthood to realize their dreams. if you are casual consumer of news these days, you can recall a story red or a pc on a 14-year-old entrepreneur. waiting until adulthood realize dreams, something we see. scare tactics don't work so extreme or frightening messaging isn't going to resonate. positive message in works. given the time, the uncertainty they have grown up in. these are kids that school shootings and violence at school has become quite commonplace which is incredibly sad but certainly shaping who they are, what they hope and fear. how did they differ from

millennials? when we compared millennials at the same age. marcia greenblum may have talked about this. millennials at age 8-17, 1997 versus the same age in 2007, if they were more optimistic that they would be better off than their parents, less likely to think it is cool to be smart and probably would have answered that it is cool to be content. they are more likely to daydream about running their own business, helping others traveling around the globe, being a great artist, musician, writer, individualistic expression of creativity is important to this generation. and farm work influenced by their parents than millennials and certainly millennials care more about the influence of their friends. all that to say i think this is an indication of a really shift the mindset when talking about the consumer here and now,

millennials. that was a lot of stuff. if you have questions or need more information i would be happy to provide it. thanks. [applause] >> thank you to all our panelists. great information and insight. we have a few minutes for questions from the room. christopher will be walking around with a microphone and we already have our first taker. so that is fantastic. >> chicago consumer coalition. a discussion about a particular age group, we also talked about sex, geographic location, health status, and other parts. not one speaker has spent much time breaking this down, income distribution. the rich versus the 4. who can afford to eat what and

why is that? [inaudible conversations] >> the quality of that story gets a lot of attention. you can see it in this generation. [inaudible] >> one reason this generation is that it a tough time getting started and they have gone to college. about a third, we live to 25-30, presumably that stage beyond their formal education, what about the economic circumstance? we have gone to college, first

of all 33% as high as any generation. they are -- two thirds of them student loan debt averages 28,000, hard wait to get started when you have that happen. but you compare their economic circumstances, economic circumstance of the 60-65% who haven't gone to college and you see a much bigger gap than use of 20 or 30 years ago. you are really in trouble in the knowledge base economy. so for example the unemployment rate of 25 to 33-year-olds for college graduates is not that bad. 3.8%. they have not gone on to college, 12%. the world has collapsed for them and you see that in their incomes and wealth and the debt.

the economic divide with in this generation is quite large. >> i would answer the question this way. you asked me the difference between the two i would be happy to do it. it is not an easy answer. heavy upper income millennials the paving different from lower income. you may have the same aspirations. a different factor. >> i work for and non profit in

new york city. millennials are shaping our food system there is a shocking lack of millennials on this panel. and the conversation about women's issues, african-american issues, every single one of the people on this panel and someone who is engaged, i found some of these a little insulting. i am curious how we can engage millennials at us thoughtful way and let me bring to forums like this. we decided to start eating this way, this is a push of young parents, young people, greenhorn so my question is how can we engage them in a meaningful way and bring them to this panel to

talk about the experience? >> again, invite them. it is not my fault they are not here. 30 years experience watching your millennial, invite them. they should be here. we have people in our organization who are millennials to work with us and help people eat. it is not a very difficult thing to do. >> certainly 80, 95 project development is what we call living, breathing focus group, a group of millennials so we are tapping that community for insight and information on behalf of clients and general knowledge all the time so they are actually, all the stuff i shared we got from millennials. 4200 employees have across the world. i would venture to say at least half if not more millennials. they are in forming all of certainly in my role and what we

do on a daily basis and it is reflected in the research we have seen and shared. >> one last comment, i did report on the focus groups with the millennials and is a reflection of what they will say. >> caroline smith, director of food safety. i am wondering, i am interested, i didn't hear much on the issues of local, natural or organic. and farmers' markets. in this generation, have you tested the issue of how many of them every two weeks are shopping at farmers' markets or eating organic for natural? i am interested in whether they are part of the driver in that direction. >> i will start us off on this.

is this working or not working? i see that guy coming up. we watch everything that all people eat. it is time constraint which i could have gone on two hours talking about how people eat to be honest and i was glad i stopped within 13 minutes. no question about it, this generation, the millennials are going to define the future of eating in this country. when i was that boomer i was the finding, looking for how to avoid harmful substances to my diet and that was the driving force in thes. it is really about things you should avoid. that is what the discussion was. this generation is coming to what should i add to my diet? they are talking about whole wheat and dioxins, dietary fiber, things you add to make your diet better. clearly on the organic, had a wonderful run, organic, 13% of

u.s. population consuming an organic them once in a two week period in 2003. by 2006 the number doubled to 26%. in a three year period you don't have anything move that fast that since 2006 that number hasn't moved. it is of 1/4 of the population. big number, important. can you afford to have organic? money, this issue comes up more and more often. natural, do i want natural? no question. i don't know what natural is. i don't know what a natural is. the you have a natural product? everything is natural. i would say the millennials 18 to 34-year-old group will define for their parents and the next generation what we're going to talk about until a new generation comes on the does the same no different than the baby boomers. >> anybody else? >> i am jessica, nutrition

policy department. i am wondering if any of your research or experience sheds light on whether millennials or more likely to make impulse purchases in the supermarket, in their food shoelaces and how that affects their health. >> i don't really know shopping habits. i know consumption habits. in most snacks in this country they're not impulse purchases, they're sitting your house, 75% of all snacks in america today are stuff that is sitting in the house consumed 24 hours after you purchase them. impulse is a small thing as part of the total -- we see things but -- >> we will leave this event so you can watch it again anytime online at our web site, c-span.org. going live to the u.s. senate. in about an hour senators will start debate on a bill raising the minimum wage from $7.45 to $10 an hour over two years. will be advanced in new eastern.

the president will be speaking about the minimum wage at 3:10. c-span3 will carry that live. back here in the senate 4:00 p.m. there will be votes on six judicial nominations which now to live coverage of the u.s. senate on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o divine master, incline the hearts of our lawmakers to follow in your way. may they seek to stay within the

circle of your providential plan for their lives, striving to please you as they live for your glory. lord, deliver them from crooked thoughts, careless words, and selfish hearts. forgive them for the things undone that ought to have been done and the things done that ought not to have been done. spirit of purity and grace, guide our senators with your power. we pray in your strong name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to

the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., april 30, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable edward j. markey, a senator from the commonwealth of massachusetts, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore. mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to calendar number 354, the minimum wage legislation. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 354, s. 2223, a bill to provide for an increase in the federal minimum

wage and so forth. mr. reid: mr. president, following my remarks and those of the republican leader, the senate will be in morning business until 10:30 this morning. the republicans will control the first half. the majority will control the final half. following that morning business, the time until noon will be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees prior to a cloture vote on the minimum wage. at 4:00 there will be votes on nominations. later today, as i just announced, we're going to have, we hope, the beginning of a debate on the increase of the federal minimum wage. mr. president, millions -- millions of american workers will be watching how each senator votes today. to them, it is a matter of survival. they'll be observing to see if we ensure a full-time worker in america receives a livable wage.

and for republicans, this vote will demonstrate whether they truly care about our economy. republicans have fashioned themselves over the years as defenders of the economy. congressional republicans have told the american people they are the party of jobs and financial prosperity. how illogical then that the senate republicans today will be not supportive of legislation to increase the minimum wage. what's preventing my republican colleagues from giving american workers a livable wage? a fair shot, knowing that 75% of the american people support increasing the minimum wage? if americans are searching for an answer, why they would refuse to raise the minimum wage. they should look no further than the republicans' billionaire benefactors -- i repeat, billionaire be benefactors, the

koch brothers. yesterday the americans for prosperity -- only one of the koch-funded organizations -- instructed republicans in done vote against the minimum-wage increase. they said, we're going to score this vote. what does that mean? it means if you vote "yes," you're not going to get the help of charlie and dave. they want a "no" vote. that will make charlie and dave happy. just in case any of their followers in the senate were to experience a change of heart and be inclined to vote for an increase, the organizations vote that they will really go after these people. again, i repeat, "score the vote." in other words, when it comes time for the koch brothers to play the role of santa claus, republicans should know that charles and david are making a list and checking it twice -- probably more than that.

so even though 75% of americans support this legislation and our economy will profit from a wage increase, it is not a priority for the republican colleagues. today former governor poe lenty, considered by many people the last election cycle to be the right person for the republicans to nominate for president, he came outer toda out today strond said, i'm not afraid of the koch brothers. i believe the minimum wage should be increased. our republican colleagues should listen to this respected republican leader. to add to the republicans' theater of the absurd, the house of representatives budget committee is holding a hearing today on poverty in america. how about that. you'll recall that paul ryan ran

for vice president. he was part of the ticket that labeled 47% of americans as moochers, not deserving republicans' attention. moochers, mr. president. representative paul ryan has called struggling americans "takers." taking into account his well-documented disdain of americans trying to help their fathers i'm anxious to hear how he plans to era eradicate pover, in that he considers them takers and moochers. maybe he'll need to check with the koch brothers first, as did he with his recent budget proposal. senate democrats are doing something. we continue to propose meaningful legislation like this minimum wage that gives american families a fair shot at prosperity. the republicans filibustered extended unemployment benefits. they filibustered giving women the right to make the same amount of money as men.

my daughter, why should she get 77 cents when someone doing the same job she does who is a man gets $1? it is unfair. but they filibustered that. so we're going to continue to propose meaningful legislation. senate republicans assert that increasing the minimum wage will not help working families. that assertion is not only wrong, mr. president, it's -- it makes no sense. no sense. it's illogical. 28 million americans stand to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage. i repeat, about 10% of all americans stand to gain from the legislation before this body we're goin.and we're going to ve if we can begin debate later today. almost two-thirds -- i'm sorry, almost 75% of small businesses support raising the minimum

wage. why? it creates more business for them much it's good for the economy. so the assertion that boosting the minimum wage would hurt businesses, again, is wrong and it is illogical. researchers at the federal -- at the chicago federal reserve bank have found consumer spending increases, yes, increases dramatically following a minimum-wage hike and businesses reap the benefits of a minimum-wage increase. that's what these experts said. this minimum wage legislation is good for american workers, businesses, and the commitment of but, mr. president, republicans refuse to even allow us to debate the issue, signaling instead their intention to filibuster the minimum wage legislation, as they have filibustered virtually everything the president suggested during the past five years. when it comes to helping working-class families, republicans in washington are echoing what the republican leader declared last week in

kentucky: it is not my job to create jobs. well, it is his job. it's their job, the republicans. it's my job. it is the job of i.f.r of everyf congress to do everything we can to create jobs. that's why in addition to raising the minimum wage, which will create jobs, we believe there should be something done about infrastructure, creating tens of thousands of jobs. so badly needed. so today we have an opportunity to help our hardworking constituents from sea to shining sea, mr. president, and show theme this we're a-- and show them that we're attentive to their needs. i ask my colleagues to join us, join governor pawlenty, that americans deserve a livable wage. at the end of the day, our job is to give every american worker a fair shot to provide for themselves and their families.

no welfare, mr. president. just a job. would the chair announce the business of the day. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half. mr. reid: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: i'd luke to start this morning by reit read -- this morning by reading an excerpt from a memo by gene sperling to president clinton t relates it a minimum wage proposal similar to the one we're considering today. here's what he wrote: "your entire economic team believes that this approach is too aggressive and are concerned that it could approve damaging to employment prospects of low-skilled workers, as well as to the general microeconomic performance of our economy." bue memo noted there was a plus side to supporting the proposal. it would unify the liberal wing of the democratic party. well, today feels like deja vu all over again because even though our constituents keep telling us that they expect washington to focus on jobs, that's clearly not what they're getting from the senate. instead senate democrats are

pushing legislation today that would cost as many as a million jobs in this country, legislation that the left flank of their party demands. that's their response to the pleas of our constituents to do something about jobs. the proposal that nonpartisan analysts tells us could cost jobs. these are the same washington democrats who have been at the helm of our economy for five and a half years, the same ones who have been bragging about recovery for the past four. we learned this morning the economy grew by just .1%. .1%. so i can assure you that if this is the democrats' idea of a recovery, the people in my state at least aren't terribly impressed. they're ready for new ideas. they're ready to turn the page from the liberal play book that just hasn't worked. it's clearer every day that the

d.c. liberal establishment is completely out of ideas. i mean, they don't even pretend to be serious about jobs anymore. the clearest proof of that is today's vote on a bill that could cost about 17,000 jobs in kentucky alone and potentially as many as a million nationwide. but senate democrats don't seem to care. they don't seem to care that about six in ten americans oppose a bill like this if -- if -- it means losing hundreds of thousands of american jobs. before washington democrats true focus these days seems to be making americans happy, not helping the middle class. they seem to think they can coast on stale ideas and the american people haven't been paying attention to their recent dismal record at helping the people they claim to care about. they seem to think people won't

notice that time and time and time again that they have ended up making things harder for people they claim they want to help. but the american people see through that game. it's crystal clear from new polling that we've seen this week. people realize the washington liberal establishment is just out of energy and out of ideas. and if they didn't realize it before this year, they got confirmation of it when senate democrats effectively admitted that their so-called agenda for the rest of the year was drafted by campaign staffers. in short, washington democrats are just not serious about helping the middle class. that helps explain why they would even consider legislation that we all know could cost up to a million jobs at a time when americans need those jobs more than ever. it helps explain why satisfying their left-wing patrons has become a more urgent priority than helping to create the kind

of well-paying middle-class jobs our country needs. well, i think our constituents deserve a lot better than what we've been getting this year from democrats who control the senate. they are already struggling under the weight of washington democrats' last ideological adventure: obamacare. washington democrats promised the sun and the moon to sell that law and then just rammed it through anyway when americans refused to buy what they were selling. washington democrats told us obamacare would lower costs, but polls show that nearly twice as many people believe the government is adding secret mind-control technology to our tv's, as believed the law is actually decreasing health care costs. washington democrats promised americans that they could keep their plans if they liked them too. and as we know, that turned out to be the lie of the year. and washington democrats down

played obamacare's negative impact on jobs, just as they were doing with this legislation we'll consider later today. and yet, the government's own nonpartisan analysis shows that obamacare will effectively drive 2.5 million people out of the american workforce. we're already seeing the effects in kentucky where hospitals are laying off workers and cutting salaries because of the impact of this law. one of the largest health care systems in the state recently let go nearly 500 employees, and its c.e.o. stated that obamacare was a factor in that decision. the head of another community hospital in glassgow, kentucky, said obamacare was a factor in his hospital's decision to reduce salaries and cut as many as 49 employees. it's happening in other businesses too as a result of obamacare, a company in kentucky with 8,000 employees was forced to cut part-time workers' hours

to below 30 hours a week. that was a difficult decision. one a particular company like so many others never wanting to make because of the impact it will have on its own employees. but one that it felt was necessary to comply with obamacare. and i recently read a story about paul deskins who runs an auto dealership in pikeville with about 50 employees. paul says obamacare might force him to reduce his workforce or sell his body shop altogether. we were hoping that obama thing would go away, he said. millions of americans feel the same way. washington democrats promised this law would help the little guy, but it ended up hurting many of the people it has purted to help. -- it has purported to help. we're seeing the same thing with the legislation before us today. six in ten americans do not want

a policy like this if -- if -- it costs jobs. and no matter how senate democrats try to spin their support for this bill, the bottom line is this, it could cost up to a million american jobs. 17,000 of those jobs in the commonwealth of kentucky. that's really the opposite of what americans expect us to do on jobs, so it's time for washington democrats to drop the tired ideological approach that's failed so miserably the last five and a half years. it's time for them to work with republicans to boost job creation and start helping the middle class. that's been republican focus all along and it's about time washington democrats joined us in working with the middle class too. mr. president, i yield the floor.

a senator: stphr-pt. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: thank you, mr. president. i rise today out of a genuine concern that the foreign policy that our administration is conducting is creating danger for the united states citizenry and kraepgt danger throughout the world. let me just speak a little bit about that. i think all of us have seen what happened in syria when the administration had an opportunity on the front end of a conflict to put its thumb on the scale to change the dynamic of what was happening inside the country, and stated that it would do so. it did not. this weekend i was at a security conference, and people on both sides of the aisle expressed dismay at the way the administration had conducted its operations, or actually hadn't conducted its operations in syria, and yet had stated so

many times what it was going to do. and today we find ourselves in a situation where i'm absolutely certain that one of the policies that we will end up carrying out in syria will be a counterterrorism policy because of our concern about the fact that because we didn't act when we could, not with american boots on the ground -- that's not what anybody has proposed -- but when the administration could have done something to prevent the disaster that has occurred there, to prevent 60,000 more syrians from being killed indiscriminately in many cases by helicopters from the administration dropping barrel bombs on innocent civilians there, when the administration could have acted to keep those types of atrocities from occurring, to keep al qaeda and other extremists from coming in to the country, when it said it was going to act and didn't, when it could have done that, now we're going to find ourselves very quickly in a situation, in my opinion, where we realize that this is a threat to our homeland, and we're going

to be engaged in counterterrorism activities. i say that as a predicate to the issue that i'm going to discuss, which is ukraine. mr. president, so many members of our body have recently been to ukraine. as a matter of fact, i count 12 members, members on both sides of the aisle that have spent time visiting ukraine and going to madon and seeing, seeing what the people there did. they rose up to hope for a free world, to hope for human rights, to hope for democracy, and to rid the country of corruption. today we have a, we have a prime minister that is young, who's taking on the issues of the day and doing everything he can to usher this country into a new era, a country that is destined to join the west on its current path. at the same time we see a country whose greatest threat to that occurring is russia, a

country that as we know, illegally went into crimea and annexed it, a country that today has 40,000 troops on the border, a country that has black ops operators inside eastern ukraine, the industrial part of ukraine, that it hopes over time to in essence become a part of what they're doing in russia. we see every day the destabilization occurring and we know the most important next step in ukraine is for them to go to this may 25 election and have an election the world community believes was a valid election. and yet we know daily putin and russia does everything it can to destabilize ukraine and to delegitimize this process of elections and moving forward. so, mr. president, a number of us, out of grave concern for what is happening, out of concern about where this is going to lead america, where this is going to lead europe,

have come together to write a piece of legislation because what we've seen from the administration is a lot of rhetoric. unfortunately, mr. president, what we see is an administration that can't help itself but to try to to be on every 24-hour ns circle talking about what it's going to do. but then when it comes to the time of actually doing it, that's not what has occurred. this week i was very disappointed when the administration unveiled its next round of sanctions. we had all hoped that the administration would put in place sectoral sanctions, sanctions that would have an impact on the resolution economy so putin and those around him who are carrying out these activities would understand that they will pay a price for what they're doing illegal in this part of the world which, by the way, goes against the agreements that we all came to around the

budapest memorandum where we said we would honor the sovereignty of this country. mr. president, for that reason, a number of us have come together to write a piece of legislation. it's a legislation that is intended to try to drive an outcome. it's a piece of legislation that moves away from the way the administration has been dealing with this, where they are always a day late and a dollar short. they're always responding to what russia does. they're always doing something that in essence deals with the situation after something bad has already occurred. this legislation is designed to, again, drive an outcome to show the administration that there is a strategic way to deal with this issue. mr. president, let me tell you what this doesn't do. and i was very disappointed to pick up the "wall street journal" this morning and read on the front page that those of us who are concerned, which, by the way, is strongly bipartisan,

strongly bipartisan in this senate, concerned about what's happening in ukraine and concerned about the fact that the administration has not done those things with economic sanctions in a more strong way to cause russia to pay a price for what it's doing. but i was very disappointed to pick up the paper and read where the president said those people who want to see military action by the united states in ukraine -- that's not what this bill does. as a matter of fact, mr. president, what this bill does is it lays out a strategy to try to keep that from happening. because i think numbers of us on both sides of the aisle are concerned that under the current policy of saying what we're going to do and not doing it, but basically continuing to allow russia to do what it's doing inside eastern ukraine is actually the very policy that could lead to significant problems down the road. we all understand these are how major conflicts unfold. and we all understand we're

talking about two countries that are armed with nuclear weapons. so, mr. president, today at noon a number of us will gather around and introduce a piece of legislation that does three things. number one, it strengthens nato. i think everyone would agree that the commitment of nato to its allies, our commitment to nato, our partners' commitment to nato has waned over the last period of time. by the way, mr. president, this is not just something that's occurred under this administration. it's been going on for some time. we have only three countries, as a matter of fact, three countries within the nato alliance that are actually honoring their commitments relative to its support of nato. so the first piece of this is to strengthen nato. it is to expedite, by the way, this administration's own plan relative to missile defense, a plan that they've laid out. it doe n