Q: After seven months, the Elian Gonzalez case is coming to a conclusion,
                  removing a thorn from U.S.-Cuban relations, and House Republican
                  leaders have struck a deal to ease decades-old sanctions against Cuba.
                  Would you accept that legislation?

                  A: If I believe that the legislation essentially allows for the sales of
                  American food and medicine to Cuba or to other countries but has some
                  protection for us for extraordinary circumstances that foreign policy might
                  require--like Senator Lugar's bill does in the Senate--then I would be
                  inclined to sign the bill to support it.

                  I've always wanted to sell more food and medicine, not only to Cuba but
                  to other countries as well.

                  Do you believe that Governor Bush made the wrong decision by allowing
                  Mr. Graham to go to his death last week? And secondly, do you believe
                  that it's time for the American people to stop and reassess where we stand
                  on implementation of the death penalty in this country?

                  Well, on the Texas case, I didn't read the file. All I know about it is what
                  I've read about it in the press.

                  I think that those of us who support the death penalty have an extra heavy
                  responsibility to assure both that the result is accurate and that the process
                  was fair and constitutional.

                  And that means to me, at least in modern terms, the broadest possible use
                  of DNA evidence and the strongest possible effort to guarantee adequate
                  assistance of counsel.

                  Mr. President, as you know, for the third time, a Justice Department
                  investigation has recommended that the vice president's activities in
                  fundraising during the last campaign cycle be looked into. Previously, on
                  two occasions, the attorney general has declined to do this. Would it be
                  better for the attorney general, for your administration and for the vice
                  president's candidacy, if he invited such an investigation?

                  Well, first, let me say, and my understanding is--I know this is true in the
                  previous cases and I think it's true here--is that there are some people in
                  the Justice Department that think there should be and some who think
                  there shouldn't be. And the attorney general, who has shown no reluctance
                  to ask for a special counsel when she thought one was called for, didn't
                  think one was called for in this case, and she reaffirmed that yesterday.

                  And I think the fact that the vice president released the transcript of his
                  interview was a very good thing, because some Republican senators had
                  made some assertions about it that just weren't so. . . .

                  They weren't true. And now that the whole thing has been put out in the
                  public, it seems to me that the best thing to do is for the American people
                  to make their own judgments about it.

                  Mr. President, as you know, the Supreme Court declined to intervene
                  today either to stop Elian Gonzalez from leaving the country or to overrule
                  other courts, all of which have deferred to your administration.

                  As you look back on this...

                  That's pretty rare, isn't it?

                  [LAUGHTER]

                  As you look back on this, sir, do you have any sense--any regrets at all
                  about the way your administration handled this matter?

                  Well, if he and his father decided they wanted to stay here, it would be fine
                  with me. But I think that the most important thing is that his father was
                  adjudged by people who made an honest effort to determine that he was a
                  good father, a loving father, committed to the son's welfare. And we
                  upheld here what I think is a quite important principle, as well as what is
                  clearly the law of the United States.

                  Do I wish it had unfolded in a less dramatic, less traumatic way for all
                  concerned? Of course I do. I have replayed this in my mind many times. I
                  don't know that we had many different options than we pursued, given
                  how the thing developed.

                  But I think the fundamental principle is the right one, and I'm glad we did.