NANCY CORDES:
00:05:13
Nicole Sganga, thank you so much for staying on top of this. And for more on the vetting of the suspect before he entered the country, we are joined now by Samantha Vinograd, who is a former top counterterrorism official at the Department of Homeland Security under President Biden, and was deeply involved in the process for screening and vetting. She is now a national security contributor here at CBS News. Sam, so good to have you with us. Just this morning, the attorney general said that this suspect entered the US with minimal to little vetting. Is that accurate? Well, Nancy, I'm happy to talk about the vetting, but at this point, we don't have indications that the horrific tragedy was a result of a vetting failure. Instead, the attorney general also said this morning, it appears the individual was radicalized once here. And let's be clear on what the vetting system is and what it isn't. The vetting system is a system in which an individual's identifiers, their biographic information and biometric information, iris scans, fingerprints, facial images, are run against data sets of information about individuals with ties to terrorism and criminal history. The vetting system is not predictive of whether an individual with no derogatory information is or is not, at some point, going to become violent. What I can tell you is this, and I was involved in the process. Every Afghan evacuee underwent vetting overseas before they were cleared to be manifested for a flight to the United States. They underwent vetting once they were manifested for a flight at a port of entry before entering the United States. And then, Afghan evacuees, including the suspect, were vetted again once in the US by the Biden administration. And this suspect underwent the most comprehensive vetting under the current administration when he applied for asylum. That process would typically involve an interview and a review of social media handles. OK, I hear what you're saying, but I want to read to you something that a DOJ Inspector General report laid out earlier this year. They said that when tens of thousands of Afghans arrived at once here in the US at the end of the war, quote, "The normal processes required to determine whether individuals posed a threat to national security and public safety were overtaken by the need to immediately evacuate and protect the lives of Afghans, increasing the potential that bad actors could try to exploit the expedited evacuation." Were there veteran corners that had to be cut here? Well, during the Afghanistan withdrawal in the subsequent period, there are various priorities in place. Certainly, we wanted to help our Afghan partners and bring at-risk Afghans here. But protecting national security and public safety was the foremost priority. And that's why a process was designed that vetted individuals overseas. But it was never intended to be a one-and-done. It was a multi-stage process with various US government agencies. Afghan evacuees were vetted overseas, biographic and biometric vetting. And then there were other stages of vetting that occurred once individuals were here. So we have to put this vetting process in context. Let's talk about this suspect, specifically. What can you tell us about these so-called "zero units" that the suspect was a part of in Afghanistan? He worked with the CIA for years, right? He did, which means that he was vetted by the CIA prior to beginning work in the zero unit, which was a paramilitary and intelligence force that partnered with the CIA incredibly closely on some very intense missions. So this suspect, reportedly, underwent vetting by the CIA for the first time over a decade ago. He had highly specialized training. He did undergo vetting at the time that he started working with the CIA, and went on some very complex missions. These units were accused of certain human rights abuses. And as you pointed out, the attorney general did say this morning that it's believed that the shooter was radicalized here in the United States. The AP is now reporting that his behavior deteriorated so sharply in recent months, that a community advocate was afraid that he was suicidal. Where does this investigation go from here? Well, this horrific tragedy could be the result of an individual that quickly mobilized to violence without any ties to foreign terrorism. And as we have discussed in other cases, trying to find lone actors before they initiate an attack is harder than trying to find a needle in a haystack. That work, trying to find a lone actor who's mobilizing to violence quickly, involves intelligence, law enforcement, and counterterrorism officials here in the US, not vetting experts, but here in the US at all levels of government, federal, state, and local, to try to find signs that an individual is mobilizing to violence, and try to get them help before they actually initiate an attack. When the president says that he wants to have everyone who came in here to the United States from Afghanistan, about 90,000 people, re-screened, re-examined, how would that work? And does DHS have the resources to do that? Well, to be very clear, DHS is not the only entity involved in vetting. Various members of the counterterrorism, law enforcement, and intelligence community perform vetting. I do have questions about the number of resources available to engage in that exercise, just based upon resource constraints within the federal government. But it is possible it will take time. But to be clear, Afghan evacuees have been re-vetted since coming to the United States. They were re-vetted under the Biden administration, and then if as they have adjusted their status to asylum or other things, they had to go through already other vetting processes. You talk about this suspect and trying to find signs that he was radicalized. How will investigators go about doing that? Well, investigators are certainly already speaking to individuals that knew the suspect, friends, family, coworkers, the organizations that helped support him in the community. And we don't yet know, Nancy, whether this individual was known to law enforcement in his community. I think we'll learn that in the coming days. Great insight. Sam Vinograd, CBS News contributor, thank you so much. And Face the Nation will be back in one minute. Stay with us. We're joined now by Ohio Republican Congressman, Mike Turner. Congressman, thanks for being with us. Happy Thanksgiving. Thank you, Nancy. Happy Thanksgiving to you, also. So you heard what Sam Vinograd just had to say about the vetting process. You've also heard what Administration officials are saying about it. Do you believe that this was a failure of vetting, or do you believe this is someone who just became radicalized, or became mentally disturbed here in the United States? Well, Nancy, this is very difficult because this is classic terrorism. And this is where an individual who tries to break the heart of a nation, who doesn't enact a murderous act right before Thanksgiving. And I think what Samantha is missing in all of this is that we didn't go to Afghanistan to bring Afghanis here. We went to Afghanistan to kill Osama bin Laden, to dismantle and destroy Al-Qaeda, to avenge 9/11, to dismantle and to overthrow the Taliban, and to ensure that Afghanistan was no longer a safe haven for terrorism. What occurred is that the Biden administration allowed Afghanistan to fall, and fled. And in doing so, then, found itself in a situation where those who had been aiding us were then at risk. And in doing so, made the decision-- --would have been at risk either way? No, their intention was that they would be still there, that Afghanistan would no longer be a safe haven for terrorists, that it would not be returned to the Taliban, and there would not be a need for those people to be evacuated. You wouldn't see American planes on the tarmac, as you showed with people running to try to get on them. By the way, those planes wouldn't be being chased by people if they were on their way to China or Russia. They were on their way to America. And those people were fleeing what the Biden administration was allowing to unfold, which is that it would once again be a nation that would be at risk to us. And so that's how you get to the situation where those individuals are at risk. Now, obviously, the vetting was flawed. By your own report, you showed that individuals who were on our known terrorist watch list made it into this country through that process. So obviously, the vetting process-- Then they were identified. But they made it in. They made it in. They made it into this country. So obviously, the process was flawed. And it was also a process that should have been unnecessary if there hadn't been this hasty fall of Afghanistan. Which the Biden administration had promised us all that they were not going to run for the exits. And they not only ran for the exits. They did so at night. Congress, after hearing after hearing, raised the issues of the manner in which the Biden administration fled, and what the consequences would be. And we're all living with those consequences. Now, the investigation is underway. Weren't their hands tied, in part, by the fact that Trump had cut a deal with the Taliban, promising to leave by a certain date? No, their hands were not tied. The manner in which they did so-- and Congress did a number of investigations at a number of hearings, and filed a number of reports that showed that it was the actions of the Biden administration, the manner in which they completely withdrew. But that investigation is underway. It's going to be underway as to this individual, and I think we all need to wait for that investigation to be concluded. The president has called for 500 more National Guard troops to be sent to the nation's capital. Your state has already contributed 150. Do you believe that more troops being deployed is the answer? Or do you think it's time to wind this deployment down? Well, when you ask, "is that the answer," you have to first talk about what the question is. And the question is, is there a national issue of crime and safety? And certainly, the American people by all polls indicate that people are experiencing it and report that there is. And certainly, in the nation's capital, there has been. There has been unbelievable reports of just the criminal activity, those individuals who have succumbed to violent crime. And certainly, there's been a reporting that the National Guard presence has made a difference. Right. No question. I think crime is down 30% or something like that in DC in the last four months. I want to turn to Ukraine now, another issue very important to you. A team of Ukrainian negotiators is meeting right now in Miami with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Special Envoy Steve Witkoff. What's your understanding of where the negotiations stand right now? There were concerns initially that the White House plan was too pro-Russia. Do you still have those Concerns?
MIKE TURNER:
00:16:22
Well, I think we all have those concerns. The president's goal of peace is incredibly important. And we saw today with Secretary Rubio his statement of, we have to have a strong and sovereign Ukraine, and that's everyone's goal, and certainly a prosperous Ukraine. And we saw the Ukrainian representative there who is committed. And we certainly think, and I think everyone thinks that President Zelenskyy is committed to peace. But one thing that I think everybody understands is that you can't have-- you can't be America-first and pro-Russia, because Russia is a self-declared adversary of the United States. It's fielding new advanced nuclear weapons that are specifically targeting the United States. It's constantly attacking the United States with offensive cyber. It continuously identifies both NATO, and the West and the United States as its adversary. So in this, and of course, when it identifies Ukraine as its adversary, it does so in identifying the West and the United States as its adversary. You have to understand that the balance of this peace arrangement has to be one where you have to look at Russia as a skeptical adversary. Speaking of the question of being pro-Russian, this week, Bloomberg got a hold of this transcript of a call between Steve Witkoff, the special envoy, and a Putin advisor, in which Witkoff appeared to be coaching the Russian on how to win over President Trump. And there are several Republicans that have great concerns about that. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania called it a major problem. Don Bacon of Nebraska said Witkoff fully favors the Russians and should be fired. What do you think? Well, the part that concerned me most is that there appeared to be an orchestration of giving Putin an opportunity to speak to Trump before President Zelenskyy was on his way to the White House. And I wouldn't want any orchestration of lessening President Zelenskyy's relationship with Trump, because it's very important when you have negotiations that, especially as you have-- in this instance, Russia is being, obviously, unbelievably murderous of the Ukrainian people. It is an aggressive authoritarian regime in this. It's killing civilians. It is not just-- this is not a military against military action. They are bombing into Ukraine and murderously killing civilians in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people are being subjected to this, and President Trump needs to be able to hear Zelenskyy's voice clearly and not just the authoritarian, murderous Putin. So given your concerns, should Witkoff continue to serve as one of the main US negotiators here? And should he be sent by President Trump to Moscow this week to meet with Putin? I think you can't take just one slice of someone's conversation during a stretched out aspects of negotiations as reflective. But I think it's certainly important that when we do get that opportunity, that our voices are heard of caution and concern. And the orchestration of inserting Putin's voice before Zelenskyy's is very concerning. And I think the White House should be very concerned about any efforts to orchestrate Putin's voice at the White House before Zelenskyy's. Because Ukraine's sovereignty and security needs to be preeminent. And we heard that this morning from Rubio, and that needs to be the focus. And President Trump said this was just a regular deal making. I want to turn to Venezuela, because you are on the House Armed Services Committee. We've all been watching the military buildup in the waters around Venezuela. Just yesterday, the president said airlines should consider Venezuelan airspace closed. Do you take that to mean that a military operation is imminent? Well, the president did not say that, and the president certainly has not given Congress any notice that is going to occur, and he certainly has not made the case. There is a buildup that the president has not explained in a way that relates solely to the actions that are currently going down in the Caribbean, and with respect to the drug trade that the president has been discussing with Congress. It is certainly a significant concern in Congress. The Washington Post is reporting that before the strike on the very first suspected drug boat in September, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered that everyone on board be killed. And then when two of the 11 people on board survived, a follow-on strike was ordered to finish them off in the water. Now, some law of war experts are saying that was illegal, that killing people who are no longer able to fight is a war crime. What is your view, and what questions do you have for the Pentagon? Congress does not have information that had occurred. Both the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and ranking members have opened investigations. Obviously, if that occurred, that would be very serious. And I agree that would be an illegal act. That is not the legal opinion, or the information, or the legal justification, the acts that have been described to Congress that are being undertaken in this. There are very serious concerns in Congress about the attacks on the so-called drug boats down in the Caribbean and the Pacific, and the legal justification that's been provided. But this is completely outside of anything that has been discussed with Congress, and there is an ongoing investigation. Very interesting to hear you say that this might be an illegal act. I know your committee is asking more questions. We'd love to learn what you find out. Congressman Mike Turner of Ohio, thank you so much for being with us. I appreciate it. And we'll be right back with a lot more Face the Nation. Stay with us. Some sad news out of California overnight. Four people were killed and 10 others hurt when a gunman opened fire during a family celebration at a banquet hall in Stockton, California. The local Sheriff's office says early indications suggest the shooting was targeted. A suspect has not been identified and is still at large. Police are urging anyone with any information that may be helpful to come forward. We'll be right back. [THEME MUSIC] Welcome back to Face the Nation. We're joined by Virginia Democratic Senator, Tim Kaine. Senator, thanks so much for being with us. Absolutely, Nancy. I want to start out by asking you about the situation in Venezuela, because there are now serious signs that military action, including potentially ground action, could be imminent. You have tried twice to pass a war powers resolutions that would force President Trump to get approval from Congress first before any military action. Twice you have failed. Do you think the numbers on this will change if there is ground action? And will it even matter at that point? I do believe the numbers will change. You're right. I, along with others, filed a resolution. No war in Venezuela or against Venezuela without congressional approval. It failed, but that was before all of these assets have amassed around Venezuela, and before President Trump said that the airspace needs to be closed. I will move with colleagues, Senator Schumer, Senator Paul, Senator Schiff immediately, should there be military action. And then secondly, I also attempted to stop the-- what I view as illegal boat strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific together with Adam Schiff. And the circumstances have changed in the months since we had that vote. In each of these instances, we were able to get two Republicans to vote together with Democrats. We think the escalating pace and some of the recent revelations, so, for example, the recent revelation about the "kill everyone" order apparently dictated by Secretary Hegseth. We do believe that we will get more support for these motions when they are refiled. You're referring to this new Washington Post report that says that Secretary Hegseth called for everyone aboard the first suspected drug boat that was targeted to be killed. When two people survived, the military went back in, reportedly with a follow-on strike. What questions do you have for the Pentagon about that situation? Well, first, if that reporting is true, it's a clear violation of the DOD's own laws of war, as well as international laws about the way you treat people who are in that circumstance. And so this rises to the level of a war crime if it's true. And the questions that we've been asking for months are, give us the evidence that the folks on board were really narco traffickers. In one instance, there were two survivors, one Colombian, one Ecuadorian in a different strike. Instead of arresting them and prosecuting them, the US picked them up and returned them to their countries of origin where they were released. So if they were narco traffickers, why would we do that? We need more evidence about that, and we definitely need the administration to finally answer the question of, why strike rather than interdict? If you know where the ships are, you can interdict. And when you do, you get evidence. You get individuals. You can squeeze them to give testimony against their higher-ups. You get evidence with the drug seizures. And finally, the other question that my colleagues and I are deeply worried about is the entire legal rationale for these strikes. We had to pry with a crowbar, after weeks and weeks out of the administration, the supposed legal rationale for the strikes in international waters. It was very shoddy because it's classified. I can't tell you what's in it, but I can tell you it was not at all persuasive that these are legal actions. And so together with a whole series of things, the early retirement of the head of SOUTHCOM, the news that the SOUTHCOM's lead attorney said these strikes were not lawful, the decision of allies like the UK to stop sharing intelligence with the United States in this area because they believe the strikes are illegal. It's time for Congress to rein in a president who is deciding to wage war on his own say-so, which is not what the Constitution allows. Yeah, a lot of lawmakers on both sides have questions that are similar to the ones you're raising. On a related note, President Trump just announced this weekend that he plans to pardon former Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who was accused of conspiring with drug cartels to move 400 tons of cocaine from Honduras to the US. He's currently serving a 45-year sentence. Were you surprised by the president's plan to pardon him, given how strongly the president feels about drugs coming from other countries like Venezuela? This is shocking. And again, this is not an individual who is accused of running drugs to the United States. He was convicted in a federal court in the United States. One of the bits of evidence was his statement that was picked up by those near to him, that he wanted to shove drugs up the nose of gringos and flood the United States with cocaine, more than 400 tons. He was the leader of one of the largest criminal enterprises that has ever been subject to a conviction in US courts. And less than one year into his sentence, President Trump is pardoning him, suggesting that President Trump cares nothing about narco trafficking, suggesting, possibly, that pardons are now for sale by this White House. And if he doesn't care about narco trafficking-- and this was also shown earlier this year with the pardoning of Ross Ulbricht-- then what is this Venezuela thing really about? The president of Colombia has said that he thinks it's about the US trying to seize oil assets in Venezuela. I lived in Honduras for a year as a missionary way back when. The conspiracy theories are running wild in the Americas about why this military effort is so important to the president when he's pardoning drug kingpins who are running drugs into the United States. These are also questions that we're going to have to dig deeply into when we return to Washington tomorrow. I want to ask you about some big developments in Washington this week. The Trump administration is making big changes in the wake of this tragic shooting of two National Guard members. They are halting all asylum decisions. They are halting Afghan immigration applications. The president says he wants a permanent pause to immigration from what he calls third world countries. We don't know how many countries. Do they have a case that it makes sense to put some of these processes on hold while they figure out what happened here? Well, first, let's just acknowledge this sad fact. These two guards members, Ms. Beckstrom and Mr. Wolfe, what a tragedy for them and their families. And you know what? They should have been at home at Thanksgiving, celebrating Thanksgiving with their families, not deployed in a political deployment to do law enforcement in DC that the DC police and other local law enforcement agencies can do. And this demonstrates, yet again, something we've seen so often. Our troops, including our guards members, they're going to serve in brave, and courageous and self-sacrificing ways, and we can be so proud of them. But the orders that they get from their civilian leaders, that's where the problem comes in. Whether it's a Hegseth order to "kill them all," or an order to send guardsmen and women in a political stunt deployment to cities around the country, these two individuals should have been celebrating Thanksgiving with their families. And I just mourn for them and all who suffer as a result. The president's decision to say, OK, this particular criminal who should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, who came in under an asylum grant that President Trump and his administration decided this past summer that now we're going to pause processes or asylum from 19, quote, third world countries-- we don't know which ones they are. You shouldn't paint with a broad brush. Go after a criminal to the full extent of the law, but don't say that all Afghans in the United States, those who served with our military, and who lost their lives, and their health, and their families in many ways, by doing so, don't say that they're all bad. Don't say that people who come from third world countries are bad. Virginia, about 1 out of 9 of us is an immigrant. And our immigrant communities in Virginia have been an enormous source of strength to our commonwealth and to our country. And it's wrong to target them all for the bad actions of an individual, just like we wouldn't target other communities in the United States for the bad actions of one individual. Something tells me this is going to be a big topic of conversation in Congress-- It will. --this week. Senator Kaine, I really appreciate you being with us, and happy Thanksgiving. So glad we could do it. Thanks. And we'll be right back. We turn now to the Director of the White House National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett. Kevin, thanks so much for being with us. Great to be here. So we've all eaten the turkey. Holiday shopping has begun in earnest, so let's talk about what the holiday shopping season looks like. We've got new surveys from Goldman Sachs and Bank of America that paint a modest picture of the holiday spending outlook. They say low and middle-income Americans are planning to pull back a little bit because they perceive that prices are higher. And they say if spending is up this year, it's going to be because goods, in part, are more expensive. Is this the temporary result or long-term result of the Trump tariffs? Well, what we've seen, those were reports about what people anticipated would happen over the Thanksgiving weekend. But we now have hard data for Black Friday and even for Saturday. And the online sales were up almost 10%. In-store sales were up 4%. It was really a blockbuster weekend after Thanksgiving. And so I think that the folks who were saying, wow, maybe people are going to be anxious about going back and getting presents for the kids and so on, they've been disproven this weekend. And I think the reason is that people-- incomes are up this year. We had a great jobs report, and with strong income, and the government shutdown over so that people presumably have a little pent up demand, as well, I think that we're looking at a great recovery from a weak few weeks because of the shutdown. Sure. I'm wondering how much of that spending increase you think is attributable to the fact that prices are up. Let me give you an example. The maker of Tonka Trucks said a couple days ago that a toy truck that cost $30 last year is going to cost $40 this year, partly because they lost about eight weeks of shipping due to the US trade war with China. What's your advice to holiday shoppers who don't want to spend more this year than they did last year, or can't afford to spend more? Well, as you know, it depends on what you're looking at. Egg prices are down. Gasoline prices dropped below $2 a gallon in a lot of places. Mortgage rates are down. Gas prices, on average, are still at $3 a gallon. Yeah, that's right. For a few states, they got below 2. And so the point is just that in the end, what matters is, in the aggregate, the average across everything that everybody buys. And that averaged about 5% under Joe Biden, and is a little bit above 2.5% about cut in half for President Trump. And the bottom line, though, is really that wages have been growing faster than prices, and that's why real incomes this year are up by about $1,200 so far. That's why we could have a great Black Friday and a great Thanksgiving sales weekend, because people feel like they have more money in their pockets, even though you're right. There are some things that cost more, some things that cost less. But on average, we're about half the inflation rate of Joe Biden. Polls show that the public, despite some of the data you're presenting, is getting more skeptical. In our latest CBS News poll, 68% of Americans said they believe that President Trump's policies are pushing grocery prices up. They're up about 1.4% year to date. And economic sentiment, the number of people who think the economy is good has actually dropped 6 points since he took office. How do you explain that? Well, first of all, you mentioned quite accurately the 1.4% increase in grocery prices. I think the interesting thing about that is that that's way below the Fed's target of 2 for everything else. And so you'd have to concede that 1.4% is very, very low inflation. And so I think that the bottom line is that we've got the Big Beautiful Bill cutting taxes on that over time, taxes for tips, and so on. And all that money is going to start to be in people's pockets, and that's why they're optimistic about next year. Scott Bessent said last week that he's looking at a first half of next year that could be in the 4% range. And the reason is that we passed the Tax Cuts in July, and so they didn't have time to change all the tax forms and everything. And so people are going to get really, really big refunds in the fall, as well. And so we're really optimistic, and we think that the good news around Thanksgiving is the sign of something that's even stronger to come. You mentioned purchasing power. One thing that is going to affect purchasing power for 22 million Americans is the expiration of Obamacare premium subsidies. Last week, a funny situation. The White House floated this plan to extend the subsidies for two years. Then you dropped the proposal, and then the president said on Air Force One, somebody said, I wanted to extend it for two years. I don't want to extend it for two years. I'd rather not extend them at all. Was this a case of the right hand not talking to the left hand? No, I think that people were talking to each other. But what happened, as you know as a professional journalist, is that sometimes people leak pre-decisional things that are confidential and pre-decisional. And I think that somebody did that and then it rolled back because it hadn't been through the whole process. But President Trump has been clear that he's very concerned about the cost of health care. And that's why we had $50 billion for rural hospitals of the Big Beautiful Bill, why we tried to get $30 billion in for cost sharing. And the Democrats didn't like that. They had an alternative approach. And so I think that what we're going to see now between now and Christmas is that people are going to work this out because we have a solution. The White House has a solution for cost sharing, and the Democrats have an alternative. And people don't want for the few seniors that have really, really massive increases to see those. But don't forget that the vast majority of people in the Affordable Care Act are getting their insurance for less than $50 a month. And so while this is an issue that needs to be worked out, we don't want to cause panic for the folks who are worried that they're going to lose the thing that they have. It's really just the very, very high cost people who are closer to retirement age that have the problem. Bloomberg is reporting, as I'm sure you know, that you are now considered the front runner to replace Federal Reserve Chair Jay Powell when his term expires in the spring. Secretary Bessent, who is heading up this search, said he was holding final interviews this week. How did yours go? I am not sure that Bloomberg has the story right. I'm really honored to be amongst a group of really great candidates. The thing that I was most impressed about this week when that story leaked was that, really, I think the news for markets was that President Trump is close to announcing a new person who's going to replace Jay Powell. And if you look at the market response to that, it was very, very positive. We had a great Treasury auction. Interest rates went down. And so I think that the American people could expect President Trump to pick somebody who's going to help them, have cheaper car loans and easier access to mortgages at lower rates. And that's what we saw in the market response to the rumor about me, which is probably about as valuable as the rumor about the health care policy that we just talked about. Well, I guess we'll find out if they're right sooner rather than later when we hear the president's decision. So for now, Director of the White House National Economic Council, that's your title today. Kevin Hassett, thank you so much. Thank you. And we'll be back in a moment. We turn now to the fight against hunger in the United States. According to government data, 47.4 million people lived in what the Department of Agriculture calls a food-insecure household in 2023. That's when a household can't necessarily obtain enough food to feed all of its members. One of the largest groups working to combat food insecurity is Feeding America, and we're joined now by CEO Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, who is in Charleston, South Carolina this morning. Claire, thanks so much for being with us, and happy Thanksgiving. Thanks for having me back. Absolutely. So during the shutdown, we saw these incredibly long lines at food banks. The shutdown has now been over for a couple of weeks. SNAP benefits are going out again. But even before the shutdown, food insecurity was at its highest rate in nearly a decade. So what is the situation now that you're seeing at food banks around the country as we head into the holidays? Yeah, so I'm so glad that you made that point. I think your viewers may be surprised to learn that food insecurity rates before the shutdown were higher than at any point during the pandemic, as an example. We're continuing to see very high demand. I think part of the reason is because the fastest growing group of people turning to the charitable food system are people who don't even qualify for any federal nutrition programs. So this is an area that we've got to stay focused on. We know the kinds of things that work. We need to do those things so that we can really address what's happening with hunger and poverty in the country. What do you think is contributing to the rise in hunger and this group of people who, as you say, don't qualify for benefits, but are showing an increased need for food? Yeah, I think it's that the system is broken. Right now, there are so many people, if you can imagine, in this country who can't afford to get a raise at work because we have a system that does not incentivize people to continue to move up the ladder. We've got ladders with big missing rungs, if you will. So we can do something about that. We could have a sliding scale, for instance, that allows people to move out of poverty. By doing that, because food insecurity is actually a symptom of poverty, they'll move out of that, as well. We as a nation should all want people to be able to provide for themselves. We should all want them to be able to get work that they can feel proud of and support their families with. We have the power to do all of those things. It will require that we work together, that we be honest about what's broken, and that we really get committed about fixing those things. What are the main challenges that the organizations in your network are facing this holiday season, as they try to feed people who are hungry? Is the food there for the people who need it? Yeah. Unfortunately, the lines are longer than the food that is available. And one of the hardest things to witness will be seeing these people who have the same dreams, aspirations for their kids and themselves, as I have for mine, and all of your viewers have for theirs, feeling the need to turn to the charitable food system. It takes a lot of courage, and resiliency and commitment to family ofttimes to be able to do that, and then for them to turn up in spite of all of those barriers, and us not be able to provide them with what they really need. So I have a deep respect for people experiencing hunger in this country. I've been a person who's experienced hunger before. I know many people who have, many people who still do. So many of them are my heroes. And then another set of heroes that I have are people working in this fight in the Feeding America Network who show up shoulder to shoulder with people experiencing hunger, who are so deeply committed to their well-being. So we need to position people experiencing hunger to be able to fend for themselves. And we need to position food banks to be able to provide them with the support that they need in this moment until they get there. As you know, there are about 2 million Americans who are going to be affected by changes to the SNAP program that were made earlier this year in a vote by Congress. They will not be receiving SNAP benefits any longer. What are the economic implications of that? And in about 30 seconds, what can your organizations do about it? According to the Congressional Budget Office, we're probably looking at about a 6 billion meal-per-year gap that's going to be created. So the kinds of things that we ought to do, we ought to address fraud where it exists. We ought to incentivize people to be able to get the hand up that they need and to move out of poverty. We ought to address error rates, but we ought to do all of these things strategically, and we ought to do them in a bipartisan way. This ought to be the kind of thing that this country can come together around, that we can hold hands shoulder to shoulder. Because when people experiencing hunger win, we all do. We have to leave it there. We've got a hard out, but thank you so much, Claire Babineaux-Fontenot from Feeding America. Thank you so much. We'll be right back. [THEME MUSIC] And that's it for us today. Thanks for watching. For Face the Nation, I'm Nancy Cordes. Have a good one. [THEME MUSIC]
