Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Newsroom

Dr. Laura's On-Air Rant; New Border Security Law Briefing; Suspected Stabber Waives Extradition; Ushering in New Leaders; Flash Floods, Extreme Heat; Dr. Laura's On-air Rant

Aired August 13, 2010 - 11:59   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: Hello again, everyone. I'm Tony Harris. Top of the hour in the CNN NEWSROOM, where anything can happen and usually does.

Some of the people behind today's top stories -- radio personality Dr. Laura says the N-word 11 times live on air. Her rant, prompting a renewed debate on race and racism in America.

The man police link to at least 18 stabbing attacks in three states in court last hour in Atlanta for an extradition hearing. Michigan authorities want him on murder charges.

You're online right now. We are, too. Josh Levs is following what's hot -- Josh.

JOSH LEVS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Tony, in addition to all the news everyone is following on the Doctor Laura story, we have this here, a surfer videotapes his encounter with a great white shark. You can see the video right here.

Plus, check this out. A new species of monkey discovered. But it's also endangered. Poor, little guy there.

Details right here, of course, at CNN.com.

HARRIS: Josh, appreciate it.

Let's get started with our lead story. Growing outrage over radio host Laura Schlesinger's repeated use of the N-word live on air. Her conversation with a black female caller complaining about her white husband's racist-sounding friends turned into this --

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

LAURA SCHLESSINGER, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Yes, I think you have too much sensitivity and not enough sense of humor.

CALLER: So it's OK to say (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

SCHLESSINGER: Oh, it depends how it's said.

CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?

SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.

CALLER: But you're not black. They're not black. My husband is white.

SCHLESSINGER: Oh, I see. So a word is restricted to race. Got it. Can't do much about that.

CALLER: I can't believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: I didn't spew out the (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Right. I said that's what you hear --

CALLER: I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: Yes, they did.

CALLER: I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: They did, and I'll say it again. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) is what you hear on HBO.

Why don't you let me finish a sentence? Don't take things out of context. Don't NAACP me. Leave them in context.

CALLER: I know what N-word means, and I know it came from a white person, and I know the white person made it bad.

SCHLESSINGER: All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Can't have this argument.

You know what? If you're that hyper-sensitive about color and don't have a sense of humor, don't marry out of your race.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HARRIS: Well, Laura Schlessinger used the N-word 11 times over the course of the five-minute conversation. Next day, the apology.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

SCHLESSINGER: I talk every day about doing the right thing, and yesterday I did the wrong thing. I didn't intend to hurt people, but I did. And that makes it the wrong thing to have done.

I was attempting to make a philosophical point, and I articulated the N-word all the way out -- more than one time. And that was wrong. I'll say it again. That was wrong.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HARRIS: The conservative radio show host has offended listeners many times before.

Let's check in with Josh Levs on this story -- Josh. LEVS: Yes, Tony, we found some video here -- let's go to this -- of an ad in 2000 that a series of groups took out opposing her and saying that they didn't want her to have a successful TV show. In fact, her TV show did not last long, it ended I think less than a year after it started. It ended early 2001.

And they pointed to comments she made about single moms, about women, about families. But some that got the most attention were her comments about people in same-sex marriages, about homosexuals in general.

Our Jane Velez-Mitchell actually brought this up last night. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JANE VELEZ-MITCHELL, HLN: Here are some of her greatest hits.

"A huge portion of the male homosexual populace is predatory on young boys." "If you're gay or lesbian, it's a biological error." "I call homosexual practices deviant."

And in the past, when there were protests after she said these inflammatory things, she also apologized. In fact, she put a full- page ad in a magazine.

So, she apparently thinks that she can say anything she wants, and then there's going to be an uproar, and then she can just say, "I'm sorry" and it's going away. But I don't think it's going to happen this time around.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LEVS: So that is something people are watching for, will there be that kind of forgiveness, or, ultimately, will her show continue to be as successful as it is right now?

I will tell you, Jane referred to an ad in a magazine that she put out at the time apologizing for that. It was in "Daily Variety" back in 2000. And she said, "Some of my words were poorly chosen. Many people perceived them as hate speech." She said that she is one of the first radio talk show hosts to take on-air calls from openly gay and lesbian listeners, and she also said she deeply regretted the situation.

Now, let me tell you about her, just so you understand where she is coming from.

She goes by "Dr. Laura." She has a Ph.D. in physiology from Columbia and a certification in marriage, family and child counseling. And she has a huge reach.

Her show is heard on more than 400 stations, and she reaches about nine million listeners weekly. So, even if you're looking at how many people heard just her the first time, before it got caught on the news and everyone is watching online, we're still talking about a huge audience for here there -- Tony.

HARRIS: OK, Josh. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Dr. Laura's on-air rant presents another opportunities for us to look at the bigger picture here, how American can start a national conversation on race and racism. We're going to try.

I will talk to William Jelani Cobb, associate prefer of history at Spellman College. That's in five minutes.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: This one is for all you parents who can't get your kids back to school fast enough.

A fire-breathing school bus equipped with a jet engine is our "Random Moment of the Day." Let's explain here.

It can hit 367 miles an hour. Look at that thing!

Actually, most of the bus was rebuilt because the original frame couldn't handle the super speeds. Right?

Bet you're asking, why put a rocket on a school bus? Great question. Thanks for asking it.

The Indianapolis man who built it says it leads to a lot of -- that's awesome, dude -- comments from 6-year-olds. Plus, look, it makes for a terrific "Random Moment of the Day."

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: And getting back to our lead story, the racial rant of conservative radio host Laura Schlessinger, she used the N-word 11 times while talking with an African-American who had called to complain about her husband's racist-sounding friends.

(BEGIN AUDIO CLIP)

CALLER: How about the N-word though? The N-word has been thrown around --

SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and you all hear is (EXPLETIVE DELETED).

I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing, but when black people say it, it's affectionate. It's very confusing.

CALLER: I can't believe someone like you is on the radio spewing out the (EXPLETIVE DELETED). And I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: I didn't spew out the (EXPLETIVE DELETED). Right. I said that's what you hear --

CALLER: I hope everybody heard it. SCHLESSINGER: Yes, they did.

CALLER: I hope everybody heard it.

SCHLESSINGER: They did, and I'll say it again. (EXPLETIVE DELETED) is what you hear on HBO.

Why don't you let me finish a sentence? Don't take things out of context.

(END AUDIO CLIP)

HARRIS: All right. The conservative radio show host has apologized for her use of the N-word.

William Jelani Cobb, author of "The Substance of Hope: Barack Obama and the Paradox Progress," joining me from Boston.

Jelani, good to see you.

I should add he is also associate professor of history at Spellman College.

Let's talk about first here the confusion, honestly, the honest confusion a lot of folks feel over the use of the N-word. Why wouldn't white folks believe it's OK use the N-word when it is used in popular culture by blacks?

WILLIAM JELANI COBB, AUTHOR, "THE SUBSTANCE OF HOPE": Well, there's a few things that we should say up front. One is that there is far from universal agreement among African-Americans that the term is socially acceptable in any context. So it's not simply as if there's a unanimous opinion that it's OK for black people to use it and it's inappropriate for any other community to use it. But even that notwithstanding, we do know that there are differences.

Sometimes people will try to use the term affectionately, or ironically, and it simply is not the same history for people outside of that community using the term. I think the best example is we have seen the comedian Jeff Foxworthy with the whole bit that he does about "You might be redneck," because he identifies with this community, and people might say it's different for him to use it, but it certainly wouldn't be acceptable for anyone outside of that community to simply call someone by that name.

HARRIS: Yes. Give us a bit of a history lesson here. How and why was the word created?

COBB: Well, I mean, the word is a corruption of the word "Negro," which was initially what people called the Spanish and the Portuguese word for black. The Portuguese began the slave trade earlier than some other areas in Western Europe, and the term was corrupted. But over time, its connotation became very distinct from its denotation.

The word came to symbolize and signify the subordinate status of black people in this country. And so we have had some discussion about the 14th Amendment of late, and people wanting to change it, but the importance of understanding the place of the 14th Amendment is that it literally provided citizenship for African-Americans who had heretofore been defined as non-citizens, and lesser beings if, indeed, we were human at all. And that is a tragically ugly part of American history, and that word was used in order to denote that status.

HARRIS: Do you see politics in this latest race flare-up? Laura Schlessinger does make the comment in that conversation that we have a black president, and yet, in her view, there is more complaining about race.

COBB: Well, I think in some ways, the least offensive aspect of it -- it was certainly offensive, but the least offensive aspect is that she used the word, as opposed to using that single letter -- you know, single initial that we use for it. And I think that while that's problematic, the bigger problem was her overall hostility to the idea that there even is racism continuing in this society.

President Obama has been quite explicit in saying in different forums, and even when he was a candidate, saying that we have ongoing, continuing racial problems.

HARRIS: Jelani, I have to interrupt, because we've got the White House briefing going on right now, and the secretary of homeland security is leading that briefing.

Let's go there now live.

(JOINED IN PROGRESS)

JANET NAPOLITANO, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: Second, it makes permanent many of the assets that this administration has surged along the border during the past 18 months.

Now, let me pause there for a moment. I have worked on border issues as a public servant for 17 years, starting in 1993 as United States attorney in Arizona, then the attorney general of Arizona, then the governor of Arizona, continuing through today as the secretary of homeland security.

What's significant about this bill, in addition to its contents, is that it passed something with bipartisan support that gives us the resources to continue efforts that were well underway and demonstrates that the border is not and should not be a political issue. It is a matter of national security in which we all, both parties, have a stake.

And on that score, even before the president signed this bill, the administration had already devoted more resources to the southwest border than at any point in American history. These efforts are making a difference, and they are the reason why everything that is supposed to be going up is going up and everything that is supposed to be going down is going down.

Seizures are up and rose across the board last year. Apprehensions, or illegal crossings, are down. For the first time ever, we are screening 100 percent of southbound rail. Criminal alien removals are at all-time high. We've added more technology, manpower and resources to the border than ever before.

This is a long-term, systematic effort to defeat the cartels and to continue to secure the border. The administration is dedicated to that approach, and that's why the president ordered 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, and it's why he asked Congress for this supplemental funding.

Now, the bill -- in terms of manpower, the bill provides for 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents. It contains $68 million for Customs and Border Protection officers at our ports of entry, facilitating legal traffic and interdicting contraband.

It enables ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to hire more than 200 special agents, investigators, and intelligence analysts who will help combat narcotics smuggling and their associated violence.

It provides for two more unmanned aircraft systems and has $14 million to deploy improved tactical communications technology that will improve enforcement, particularly along some of the more remote areas of the border.

It also includes $196 million for the Justice Department to surge federal law enforcement, add prosecutors, immigration judges, and support for detention and incarceration of criminal aliens in coordination with our homeland security enforcement efforts.

And in terms of infrastructure, it includes $6 million for two forward operating bases to improve our border enforcement activities.

This bill is clearly another step forward on border security, on top of the significant progress that the administration has already made. It is one of the many tools in the toolbox we have constructed along the border.

So we're very pleased with its swift passage, very pleased the president was able to sign this bill into law today. And now I'm happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Madam Secretary --

ROBERT GIBBS, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: (OFF-MIKE)

QUESTION: Thank you. Thanks. Secretary Napolitano, when the president spoke about immigration last month, one of the points he made is that our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols, it won't work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.

Is the administration now in any way conceding that comprehensive immigration reform is not tenable, that you can actually fix this problem bill by bill?

NAPOLITANO: No. No, I would -- I would say quite the opposite. I think the administration's position is that this bill adds to significant border security efforts that have been underway for the past 18 months.

And the administration is very intent now in saying, look, this bill passed on a bipartisan basis. Now let's get Republicans to the table finally so we can address the whole issue of immigration reform. These are not sequential items; these are things that should be done together.

QUESTION: So is it your sense, having gotten this piece through, and knowing the politics as well as the policy, that comprehensive reform is still something that can happen in the next couple years?

NAPOLITANO: Oh, absolutely. And it needs to happen. And -- and, again, I say this as someone with a lot of experience with the immigration issue and along the border.

We need a safe and secure border. This is a 2,000-mile -- roughly -- expanse. It involves a lot of legitimate and legal trade of commerce, goods, tourism, people that need to be able to go back and forth. So the border area itself needs to be safe and secure. But as a nation, we also need immigration reform.

GIBBS: But let me just add this. I think you've seen -- the president's talked about this. As I've mentioned in here before, the president's worked on this in 2005, 2006, 2007 as a member of the United States Senate.

Leaders in the Senate made tough decisions and tough votes to get a bill because Democrats and Republicans worked together. Nothing is going to happen on this issue in a comprehensive way that only involves one party or one person, right?

Secretary Napolitano's home state had leaders that were willing to make tough votes, willing to roll up their sleeves and be leaders. And the question is -- we will get comprehensive immigration reform when we go back to a time in which both Democrats and Republicans are willing to be leaders, and only -- only then. It's not going to go through the Senate or the House or Congress and come to any president's desk because one party has willed it to do so.

QUESTION: Well, I guess that's my point, just to finish up on this, is that there always seem to be strong support at some level for securing the border, but not for the more difficult parts, including, you know, a guest-worker program and so forth. So how -- how does this differ from that? You've got the part that both parties can support. Where does the rest come from?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think the -- the efforts on overall immigration reform are ongoing. But the point I'm making is that you need to multitask. You need to secure the border and have a safe and secure border area, and you need immigration reform.

That's what this president has set out to do. That's what he has asked the Department of Homeland Security to work on. That's why he has invited Republicans and Republican leadership to the table to say, look, let's get to the issue of immigration reform.

But at the same time, we want to make sure that the border itself and that -- that 2,000-mile expanse is safe and secure.

QUESTION: Just following on that, I'm wondering if you could talk a little more specifically about the president's timetable for bringing about comprehensive immigration reform, for getting Republicans to the table. And how much will this be contingent on the outcome of the November elections? Are you concerned that if Republicans increase in strength, then the prospects diminish?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think the purpose of our briefing here today is to talk about this bill, its significance, the fact that it passed in a bipartisan fashion, and very swiftly. I mean, the president made a formal request for this supplemental funding, I think, in June. And we are now -- we have already begun moving resources, in addition to what we had already put at the border, to the border. This will allow us to make some of those movements permanent.

And the addition of 1,000 more Border Patrol agents on top of the 20,000 we already have, that is significant; 200 more ICE agents that we can devote to special investigations involving the cartels that use that border and its trafficking routes, that is very significant.

Unmanned aerial systems that we can add to the ones we already have, along with the fixed-wing and helicopters that we have, that allows us to have the capacity for 24/7 air coverage along this border. This is the most kind of systemic border security package, when you add everything together, that has happened that we've ever seen.

QUESTION: Without being impolite, the question was, what is the timetable for -- now that you have this bill, which is significant and clearly lays the groundwork for comprehensive immigration reform, what's the timetable for the next step? And how much is it contingent on the elections?

NAPOLITANO: Look, the president has said from the beginning that immigration reform is a priority for him. He has reiterated that as recently as the speech at American University, which you were quoting from. And he has invited Congress to the table.

But, again, as was said earlier, this is in the hands of the Congress, and they will need to address this in a bipartisan way. It can't only be done by Democrats. The Republicans need to be willing to come to the table. The timetable question should be addressed to them.

GIBBS: And I think -- just to add one thing -- nobody has suggested that I have heard that -- that only one step needs to be taken to have comprehensive immigration reform. This is an aspect of it. It's something we always mention. But there are obviously other aspects that -- that are needed and that people are interested in doing.

And the president has -- has reached out to and has talked to Democrats and Republicans on this issue. We just need a little support to make it happen.

QUESTION: But if you -- if you don't get those other aspects, if you don't get comprehensive reform, is this not just then a drop in the bucket in attacking the problem?

NAPOLITANO: No. And I say this, again, as someone who is from a border state and has governed a border state. There's a -- the border region is -- is an important, critical area for this country. So much trade and commerce occurs along there. People live in communities along that border region.

We want to make sure that border region is safe and secure. We want to -- and that requires a law enforcement approach that includes manpower, that includes infrastructure, that includes technology. And that's why this bill, added to what we've already done, gives us the -- the resources necessary for that kind of a system to be in place. That makes a lot of difference for people who live in that area and for the country as a whole.

QUESTION: Could I ask you about -- you've mentioned the crossings are down. Could you talk a little bit more about that, in terms of the numbers? And to what degree do you think that is the result of the economy, that there simply aren't the jobs here now for people to -- to want to cross the border? And to what degree is it because of specific measures that have been taken by this administration?

NAPOLITANO: Right. We can give you specific numbers, but I can tell you from my own experience that crossings are down, I have to say, 50 percent, 60 percent from even a few years ago.

QUESTION: Some people believe almost all that is because of the economy.

NAPOLITANO: I think it's -- it is fair to say that the economy has something to do with it. But it is also fair to say that the additional law enforcement resources at the border also have something to do with it.

And there's a third factor, I think, that should be taken into account, and that is, we have undertaken really an unprecedented partnership with Mexican law enforcement, with the Calderon administration, with law enforcement on the southern side of the border, and that also is having an effect.

QUESTION: To follow on that, can you quantify what this extra money and resources is going to mean, in terms of percentages of all the things that you're trying to curtail?

NAPOLITANO: Got to ask the question -- I'm not sure I understand.

QUESTION: Sure. You said you're trying to limit the activity of drug cartels, of narcotrafficking, of human trafficking, $600 million, 1,200 National Guard troops. How much of an effect is that going to have? Can you quantify it in terms of numbers and percentages?

NAPOLITANO: It's always difficult to quantify a negative, how much have you prevented from occurring? But what we can give you are exact numbers on how -- how much crossings have gone down and how much seizures have gone up. And that will give you some of the matrix.

QUESTION: But now you're adding more resources. So I guess the question is -- critics might say, well, you're throwing this in, you're doing this for political show in order to lay the groundwork for November, in order to lay the groundwork or the predicate for pursuing comprehensive reform at some point in the future. What effect is this actually going to have? And that's -- that's the genesis of the question I'm asking.

NAPOLITANO: I think you will see crossings continue to go down, and I think you will continue to see seizures going up. I don't know if I can give you an exact number.

(CROSSTALK)

QUESTION: -- because of all the --

NAPOLITANO: When the resources are in place, I think you will see that, and I think you will see crime rates along the border keep -- either remain stable or keep going down so that communities along the border are safer because of this money. So there are all kinds of ways you could look at it, but I -- I would look at all of those factors.

QUESTION: And to follow up on the earlier questions about the timing of comprehensive reform -- so it's safe to say now that the policy pieces are -- are in place. I know you say it's not sequential, but the policy pieces are being put in place, and now it's simply a political problem to get reform through Congress?

NAPOLITANO: I think -- I think it is fair to say that it is time for immigration reform, that the administration is ready to invite the Congress to get at it. But, again, as Gibbs just said, it can't be just one party. Republican leadership now needs to come to the table.

QUESTION: As -- as you know, Republicans here in Washington and in -- in the region say that, while this is -- while 1,200 National Guard troops is helpful and while this money is helpful, it's not enough, it's nowhere near enough. Do you agree that more is needed? Or do you think that we really have the resources you need at this point to do the job?

NAPOLITANO: I think this bill matches very well with what the president asked for in June. It augments what we had already been surging down the border, beginning in March of '09. I mean, I think people perhaps didn't recognize the fact that, since March of '09, we have been moving resources to the southwest border. This allows us to make some of these resources permanent, not temporary. So I believe that we have designed what needs to happen at this border. We have a good idea what it takes to keep this border safe and secure and that these monies will allow us to do that.

And, again, it shows, when the Congress acts in a bipartisan fashion, even on a -- on a complicated issue -- and border security is a complicated issue -- other issues they have addressed in a bipartisan fashion are complicated. When they do it, things can move rather swiftly.

QUESTION: I'm sorry. I didn't understand, though, for sure how you're responding to my specific question. Do you think this is enough or is more needed to do the job that you think needs to be done?

NAPOLITANO: I think this is -- this is what we asked for. And, of course, what we asked for is what we thought would be enough.

QUESTION: Do you know how long it takes for 1,500 more agents to be hired and trained and get on the job?

NAPOLITANO: Yes, the average time for a Border Patrol agent to go from hiring to training to be boots on the ground is eight months.

QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)

NAPOLITANO: Is eight months.

QUESTION: And once you get all of these in place, you feel you have kind of a long-term now stabilization on the numbers there. Is the gap widening between the border security and then the more political issue on the other side of what to do will the illegal aliens who are in the United States now? Isn't that a problem that now has even farther -- especially with the lawsuits that are out there -- is that becoming farther and farther from a possibility, not only this year, but next?

NAPOLITANO: Well, again, that goes to the issue of, you know, underlying immigration reform with those already in the country. But we have set pretty clear priorities for ICE about who -- who they should focus on from a law enforcement perspective, just like any prosecution office would.

And we have directed -- and the assistant secretary has directed -- that we focus on criminal aliens, and -- and record numbers are being removed from our country, criminal aliens, that we focus on gang members, that we focus on felony fugitives. And when you look at the numbers, the numbers show that ICE has made significant strides in that regard, and, really, record numbers are being removed.

QUESTION: Thank you, Robert.

Madam Secretary, as far as this bill the president signed this morning is supported by the Indian-Americans and companies doing business in India, but there is red alert in India and also among companies doing business in India, part of the bill, which is that this bill will be paid by those H-1B visa holders, who will be entering the U.S., but they have not entered yet, but it will be paid by them.

And, also, that this bill might impact U.S.-India relations, and what many companies are saying, this bill should be paid by those who are illegal in this country, but not those people doing business in India.

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think the method of payment, which is an increased visa charge for certain business-related businesses, business-related visas, makes a lot of sense, because what it's saying is that we're going to make sure that we -- we pay for immigration in this part of it, but we paid for it out of -- out of the visa system. And that way it doesn't come out of the general fund, which is necessary for so many other things.

And so the Senate was able to find a way to fund this bill that doesn't add to the deficit and allows us to get the enforcement monies we need on a permanent basis.

QUESTION: Do you think it will impact in any way, as far as India, U.S.-India relations, in this connection and the companies doing business in India?

NAPOLITANO: I think this administration has a very close relationship with India, and we know and hope to sustain it as such.

QUESTION: Thank you.

Back on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform, there is a concern about the temporary worker program, as you have started with this precursor of that (ph). Marc Morial, for instance, the head of the National Urban League, is concerned that there needs to be more accountability in the process of screenings, just in case there are companies that decide that they may need to go outside of the United States to bring in some workers.

What say you about that and bringing in more accountability (inaudible) making sure that they exhausted all avenues, that no one wants to work in that company, and they have to go abroad to Mexico?

NAPOLITANO: Well, I think we are all concerned and focused on making sure in the business side of the immigration process that the rules are followed, that the rules are enforced, and that jobs are not unfairly precluded for American workers. And that's the directive that's gone out.

QUESTION: But it might be the directive, but what -- what kind of teeth are you putting in place? What kind of accountability efforts are you putting in place to make sure that businesses are exhausting every measure that they can to make sure that no one wants a job in the United States before they go out into Mexico to do hiring?

NAPOLITANO: We can give you a separate briefing, but at USCIS, they have begun or have been conducting a -- a lot of oversight or go- backs on visas that are given to make sure that the rules are being followed.

QUESTION: Lindsey Graham, who's been specifically working on this issue, you were talking about the need for Republicans to come to the table. Is the administration specifically reaching out to him?

NAPOLITANO: I think the administration has reached out to a number of Republicans, including Senator Graham. And I think we all recognize that this is an issue that's not going to go away, that immigration needs to be addressed, even as we secure the border. And so, yes, the administration has reached out to Republican leadership and -- and to others, including Senator Graham.

QUESTION: And has he indicated that he would be willing to work with you on something?

NAPOLITANO: Well, he cosigned a op-ed with Senator Schumer, and they -- they together, because of where they sit in the Judiciary Committee structure, have key roles to play on whether an immigration bill can move through the Senate. And that -- that op-ed, which the president has endorsed, laid out, really, what the framework for an immigration bill should be.

QUESTION: That was a while ago, though. I mean, more recently -- more recently?

NAPOLITANO: Again, I have seen no sign that there's any change in Senator Graham's position.

QUESTION: Secretary Napolitano, last week, after a nun was killed in a drunk driving accident in Prince William County, you asked for a review into the circumstances that led the alleged driver to be released back -- by ICE back in 2008. Just looking for some details there, when you expect that review to be completed. Will the results be public? And what questions are you hoping it will answer?

NAPOLITANO: The review is not complete yet. I don't have a completion date, but it's something we're tracking out of our headquarters. I think we want to know the same thing that the public wants to know: Why was this individual, with two DUIs in his past, out on the road? And we want to make sure that the directives that we have issued since this individual entered the immigration system, that the -- the directives would -- would -- would make sure that somebody like this would not be released onto the road.

QUESTION: And will those results be made public? Or is this just for internal --

NAPOLITANO: You know, let me -- let me not answer that question prematurely, because I don't know whether there's a -- whether that would compromise an ongoing investigation. But to the extent we can make things public, we absolutely want to.

QUESTION: Thank you, Madam Secretary. A number of Republicans, notably on the House side, have indicated they would be warmer toward a comprehensive immigration package -- HARRIS: OK, the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, leading the White House daily briefing today. President Obama has signed a $600 million emergency funding bill that will send 1,500 agents to the border with Mexico. And you heard from the Secretary what the money will get us in terms of increased border security. The new spending being funded in part by raising fees on companies that bring workers from other countries into the United States.

We also learned at the top of the briefing that the president will return to the Gulf Coast August 29th to mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. The president will travel to New Orleans.

We're back in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: The man police say is behind at least 18 knife and hammer attacks in three states had a hearing in Atlanta last hour. Elias Abuelazam waived extradition and will now be returned to Michigan. That is where the five deaths in this case took place. CNN's Susan Candiotti is in Flint, Michigan, right now.

And, Susan, maybe you can tell us how things went in court today and what's expected there in Flint.

SUSAN CANDIOTTI, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, it was a pretty cursory hearing. It didn't last very long at all. And as it turns out, a lawyer representing him was not present in the courtroom. So we have this update for you now, Tony.

Evidently his lawyer, the suspect's lawyer, has arrived in Atlanta now and has requested another hearing. So there will be another hearing at about 1:15 Eastern Time. This time with the suspect, Mr. Abuelazam's, lawyer present at that time. But in the earlier hearing, he did agree to waive extradition and return here to Michigan.

I'm sure you're wondering what is the feeling among victims' families right now. Well, there's one way to describe it. A sense of relief. A sense of relief, they say, that finally a suspected killer has been caught. But they mainly want to know why, of course, like everyone else does, why did something like this happen. Why, police say, did someone go after 18 people, either killing them or stabbing them, five of them, as you know, have died, across three states, Michigan, Ohio and Virginia. Of course, police don't have to prove a motive, but like everyone else, they say they certainly want to try to find out why something like this happened.

In the meantime, we're also learning more about the suspect in this case -- Elias Abuelazam. And our resources on the ground in Israel have found out that, of course as we know he is an Israeli citizen. He was born there. He's described as a quiet child by family and friends. His family is described as a well-respected Christian family in Israel. That he was -- he left Israel as a teenager, moved to the United States. He lived in Michigan in the 1990s. Had some minor scrapes with law. Moved to Virginia, got married and divorced three years later. Divorced in 2007.

We also have a statement from a behavioral treatment center where he worked in Leesburg, Virginia. And he left their employment in 2008. We know that he moved back, according to police, back to Michigan in May, and that's when authorities say the stabbing spree began. We also know that he filed some worker's comp claims in Virginia and was receiving compensation for some of those claims.

The question now, of course, is, when will he be back to Michigan? And how will he be returned here? Authorities here say they're still working all of that out. But if, in fact, that waiving of the extradition holds tight, then he would have to come back here within the next 10 days. Perhaps we'll learn more after this next hearing coming up in about a half hour's time.

HARRIS: Lord, just looking at those pictures of him in court, that's a -- that's a -- that's a big guy.

All right, Susan, a lot of questions out there. More questions, obviously, than answers at this point.

Susan Candiotti for us in Flint, Michigan.

Susan, good to see you.

CANDIOTTI: Thank you, Tony.

HARRIS: R&B artist Usher does more than make hit records and give pretty awesome performances on stage. Through his New Look Foundation, the Grammy Award winner serves as a mentor to young people. It is what we're talking about today in our what matters segment. Our Richelle Carey sat down with Usher.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

USHER, FOUNDER, NEW LOOK FOUNDATION: Born and bred here in Atlanta. The New Look Foundation, it started in 1999 simply to motivate youth. Give them real world experiences. A new look on life through real world experiences. And as many programs, giving them the tools they need to understand how to be the active socialists that I see them as.

RICHELLE CAREY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What can they get out of this program? Tell me about some of the activities?

USHER: I made it a point to have service be a mandate. And so every year, as we introduce our kids to the curriculum of our summer camp academies, there's service in mind. Whether it's a food drive, whether it's, you know, working in the Gulf.

Today is officially power by service day.

When New Look first started, it was simply an idea that I, being in a place of influence, positive influence, could do something that would be encouraging to kids who had talents but needed to understand the know-how to make whatever that was in their mind a reality. CAREY: How has being a father changed you?

USHER: Being a father has improved me.

CAREY: Really? Come on, tell me how.

USHER: I love being a father to my kids. I love being there for them. They look forward to seeing me. I look forward to seeing them. Beforehand, I would say, you know, there was a ton of opportunity. You know, a mass of wealth beyond measure. But when you have children, no dollar amount can really amount to that. I feel complete having children.

CAREY: How do you find time to still be as driven and as successful as you are and then find the time to be the kind of father that you clearly want to be?

USHER: Though it's difficult, having a proper system and an understanding that my kids are a priority and my being in their life is a priority, being able to see them if I'm not in the same state as them, we talk on Skype, whatever. And if when I am home, I try to spend as much time as I can with them.

CAREY: Would you want your kids to go into show business? It's a tough business.

USHER: I would want my children to do whatever they want to do. But I would want to be an active part of whatever they're doing to support their growth and them finding what their light is in life.

CAREY: There's talk about "Raymond vs. Raymond." Where did you get that title?

USHER: Well, "Raymond vs. Raymond" represents two sides of my personality. The one that is a little bit more mature, and obviously matured, seasoned, cultured. And the other is the creative.

CAREY: Do you ever put something out there and you wish you hadn't?

USHER: What I choose to talk about is based off of, you know, things that I've either felt, experienced, read about, wanted to talk about, felt and needed to be addressed. And that's what it is. It's my creative license to just be as open as I can.

CAREY: I've got to ask, how did you discover Justin Bieber?

USHER: I was leaving a recording session and Justin runs up to me -- he was much, much smaller than he is now. And he's like, "hey, man, I really want to sing for you." And I told him, I said you know what, if it's meant to be, you'll get a chance to sing. I'm actually late for a session. And when I saw him online, I understood his talent and wanted to meet him in person. And pretty much after that it became history.

CAREY: What else do you want to do that you haven't done? Because it seems like you've done a lot in a very short period of time.

USHER: As an entertainer, being able to have an opportunity to speak to an entire world through a universal language -- music. I hope to bring people together. I hope that that's what I'm doing with New Look. I'm living, you know, in my prime and allowing my light to shine on everything that matters to me. In music, in philanthropy, in life.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

HARRIS: How about that, huh? If you would like to learn more about Usher's New Look Foundation, just go online to Usher's newlook.org. And to read more stories that matter to all of us, just pick up the latest issue of "Essence" magazine on newsstands now.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: I got to tell you, it has been another big day for us here in the CNN NEWSROOM, where anything can happen and usually does. We've got enough topics going on our blog page and our Facebook page today to keep you busy throughout the weekend. But I want to remind you that we have plenty of room on our Facebook page for your pics of your moments of the summer.

Now, I've posted a bunch of snaps from my recent trip to Antigua, and we would love to see your summer pictures as well. So here's what you do. Just go to facebook.com/tonyharris. Why did you go to that picture, Jen Cook (ph)? All right, it is facebook.com/tonyharriscnn. Let's get me to break. Why that picture?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: So Bonnie Schneider is here for a Friday. Let's talk about weather as across the country as we head into the weekend here. We've got some flooding in Iowa.

BONNIE SCHNEIDER, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Right.

HARRIS: It's not raining now though, is it?

SCHNEIDER: It's not, but we are expecting more rain, Tony, and that's the last thing everyone I Iowa needs after incredible flash flooding. You can see you still have flood warnings well up to parts of Iowa right now. And the city of Ames (ph) that's actually seen some of the worst of it, is still under a warning that goes into tonight. And some of the watches will continue straight through Saturday, so it's not letting up. And we could see, with the thunderstorms expected today, rainfall rates of 1 to 2 inches per hour. And that means a total accumulation of another 2 to 4 inches possible. Not happening right now.

What's happening right now is we're getting some very strong thunderstorms working their way into parts of Iowa, northward toward Wisconsin. What you see right here in the severe thunderstorm watch box and that continues for the afternoon, including the city of Minneapolis. We have some pictures to show you of what it's been looking like with all this flooding activity. You can see people are still trying to get to where they need to go by boat. And it's just been treacherous there because it's going to take quite a while for the runoff to really stop. And there's people sandbagging and trying to save their homes and property due to flooding.

We're also tracking some heavy rain along the Gulf Coast. We'll talk more about that. We'll have a check of your top stories. That's all coming up on CNN NEWSROOM right after this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

HARRIS: So Josh is here with us.

Are you getting a lot of reaction to --

LEVS: So many.

HARRIS: We asked folks to send in their comments on the rant. And, you know, if you use the "n" word 11 times on your radio show, you're going to get a lot of comments. It's what Laura Schlesinger did yesterday. She apologized today, correct?

LEVS: Yes, exactly. She -- no, all this -- it goes back a couple days. So the apology is from before today, too.

HARRIS: Yes.

LEVS: But here's just a little bit of what we're getting online from Stacy Henderson. "She is simply a disgrace to the behavioral sciences fraternity worldwide. Her first obligation should have been to help with constructive advice. She needs to go now or millions should boycott here."

This is from Kim. "I'm a black man and think it's a shame our own use the "n" word. If a black man can use it, so shall any other man. It is a sinful word and just goes to show how sick all of those who use it truly are. Sick."

Now let's get in one more. "She was right to apologize. That should be the end. I don't think it was necessary to say it outright and for that suspension is likely, advertisers will pull ads. Expect protests and a meeting with Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson."

Let's zoom over to Twitter.

HARRIS: Terrific.

LEVS: "Her apology seem weak and insincere. Certainly not enough to soothe the feelings of her called. It was such a cruel act."

One more tweet. "Her apology was not sincere, just PR damage control for ratings."

This conversation keeps going online afterwards. Here's my page. I'll show you guys where you can join me on Facebook and Twitter. We're going to keep talking about it throughout the afternoon. And on Tony's pages, too. And, you know, keep those comments coming -- Tony.

HARRIS: Terrific. Have a great weekend.

LEVS: Sure. You too.

HARRIS: CNN NEWSROOM continues right now with the man, Ali Velshi -- Ali.

ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Thank you to both of you. Have a fantastic afternoon and a great weekend.