I believe that it's a serious mistake to allow some bureaucrat in Washington to decide about the standards to be set by the people of the state of Arizona. We have a wonderful state superintendent of education. Her name is Lisa Graham Keegan. I think she's perfectly capable, as are the parents and the teachers, to be able to make those decisions. I want those decisions made not by some Washington bureaucrat but by somebody who knows my children's names. And that's all got to do with local and parental control.

(My most important contribution in the field of education is) probably in leading the effort in my -- being involved in the effort in my state for reform in many areas, supporting various education programs, a member of the Education Committee in the House of Representatives years ago and being part of those efforts as well, using the bully pulpit in favor of the examples that are set in my state and by other reformers in the school system in America -- I mean, that are reformers of the school system in America. I'm glad to have been involved in the ... military to teachers' programs where people who leave the military can become teachers if they're qualified to do so.

We leave the testing to local and state authorities, like my state of Texas. One of the reasons our children are doing so well is because we hold people accountable. But there must be consequences for an accountability system in order for it to work ... how about the system like it is today? You receive Title I money, you don't have to show anybody whether or not the children are learning. That doesn't work. That's a system that gives up on children. That's a system that just simply shuffles children through the system. And guess who gets shuffled through? Poor children. Guess who gets shuffled through? Children whose parents don't speak English as a first language. That's unacceptable to me. What's acceptable to me is to say, if you receive Title I money, you must show us -- you get to develop the standards, you get to develop the tests, but you must prove that the children are learning to read and write and add and subtract.

And you mark my words what's going to happen. Our children are going to start to learn. But if not, I won't accept mediocrity. I'll challenge the status quo. And this is what this plan does.

Well, I don't know that I'm qualified to comment on it or anyone else who didn't sit through the trial and hear all the evidence. The notion that because you are unhappy with the overall policies of the New York City Police Department, you will scapegoat four police officers rather than base your judgment on the specific details of the case is a travesty. And we should never surrender to that kind of injustice. The people who are enforcing the law on our streets deserve that they be treated with the same justice we would expect, and that means judge according to the facts.

And the reason I withhold judgment, I didn't sit through all the testimony. I haven't gone over all the details. The jury did, and they reached a conclusion that I think they in conscientious detail thought was the correct conclusion.

The only thing I have heard from a lot of the critics of this case have to do with the number of bullets and other things. I haven't yet heard a good case made that, on the facts that were presented and that existed, one should question that verdict. And until I hear that case, I'm not going to indulge in sort of emotional rhetoric, scapegoating police officers.

I share their values and their goals of the rank and file of the so-called Christian right. As I have said, I am a proud conservative with a strong conservative record in the tradition of Ronald Reagan and Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln. And I am proud of that record. I am proud that I have been one who has supported many of the issues that have to do with family values.

Where I have differed in the past and continue to differ with Mr. Falwell and Mr. Robertson is on issues such as the issue of President Clinton. I voted to impeach President Clinton. I don't believe he's a murderer. Mr. Falwell believes that he's a murderer. Mr. Robertson has espoused some cockamamie theories about the Freemasons. I believe that they have led the -- some very good and wonderful people in a message of intolerance. We share the same values, but their practice of politics is exclusionary and not inclusionary. I want the party of Abraham Lincoln, not the party of Bob Jones.

When I went to Bob Jones, I followed a long tradition of both Republican and Democratic candidates that went to lay out their vision. Ronald Reagan went to Bob Jones, my dad went to Bob Jones. Bob Dole, the Democrat governor from South Carolina the week before. I talked about bringing people together so America can achieve its greatness.

I talked about lifting the spirit and the soul of this country. I regret I did not speak out against that school's anti-Catholic bias. I missed an opportunity. I make no excuses. I make no excuses. I was on one of those talk shows one Sunday morning and the talk show host said, you know, one of the Joneses' referred to my dad in a very impolite way. I didn't -- I wasn't aware of that. But I missed -- what I regret is somebody ascribing to me opinions and views that are not my views, calling me an anti-Catholic bigot is not right. ... What I regret is the politics of smearing somebody's reputation. That's what I regret and I don't appreciate it one bit. And the good news is, Catholics from all around the country are coming to my defense and I am grateful for that.

I would be willing to look at approaches that were going to hold people accountable for their respect for public decency. After all, the licensing process is a process that throughout its existence has been understood to be based upon a respect for the needs and requirements of the public and the obligations that those holding licenses have to the public. I don't think that, that would be a change, but only perhaps a renewal of the kind of understanding that we have always had of that licensing process.

In the end, though, I think moves in the direction of government censorship are no substitute for the willingness of our citizens to do what they ought to do which is police the use of their money and their time to withdraw support from those who are destroying our moral fabric.

No, what the Chinese need to assume is that if they violate the one-China policy, the long-standing one-China policy which has clearly said that the United States expects there to be a peaceful resolution between China and Taiwan, if they decide to use force, the United States must help Taiwan defend itself. Now, the Chinese can figure out what that means, but that's going to mean a resolute stand on my part.

It's important for the Chinese to recognize that we -- our relationship is going to change from one of strategic partner to one of competitor, but competitors can find areas of agreement such as in trade. But when it comes to violating the one-China policy, the Chinese must hear loud and clear that we will help China -- I mean, Taiwan defend itself. I would hope Taiwan would also hear the call that a one-China policy is important for the peaceful resolution of the dispute between China and Taiwan. Taiwan must be told by our country that the one-China policy has -- I mean, reminded by our country that the one-China policy has allowed this country to -- Taiwan to develop into a market-oriented economy and to a flourishing democracy. It has worked, and the role of the United States is to use our prestige in the world to make sure the one-China policy remains intact.

And the fact is that there has been a strategic ambiguity (on China policy), but the person who destroyed the strategic ambiguity was President Clinton, when he went to China and called Jiang Zemin and the Chinese his strategic partner, and he destroyed the delicate balance of ambiguity which is causing many of these problems now, which is again an example of the fecklessness of the Clinton foreign policy.

Of course, I would tell the Taiwanese that they should observe the one-China policy, which calls for peaceful unification -- reunification. Of course, the Taiwanese will react because the people of Taiwan and the government of Taiwan recognize that the provocation of China would only lead to increased tensions.

So, yes, obviously I would exercise our suasion over them. But have no doubt as to why we're in the situation we're in, and that's because of the -- of President Clinton's trip to China, where this long-standing strategic ambiguity was shattered by intemperate remarks by the president of the United States..

First of all, that prohibition against religious tests was for the national government, just as the First Amendment was intended to make sure that at the national level there would be no established religion in America. The specious doctrine of separation as developed by liberal judges in the last 40, 50 years which extended that doctrine to the states through a perverted interpretation of the 14th Amendment is simply wrong and has been interfering, in fact, with the free exercise of religion in this country at all levels.

At the time that amendment was put in place, there were religious tests in most of the states in that country. The founders couldn't possibly have meant for that amendment to eliminate those tests, and in fact it was worded in such a way as to make sure the federal government did not interfere.

As for the question of somebody's religious views, I follow Christ, you know, by their fruits ye shall know them. And I will judge an individual according to those fruits, because I think they are the best indication of heart ... not professions, but actions and results.

Well, I think plenty of (Congressmen) respect and admire (Bush) more than me. But the major reason and the majority reason why most of them, obviously, in my view, are very concerned about my candidacy, including being frightened is because I am taking on the establishment and the iron triangle, and everybody knows that, and campaign finance reform is a key element of that, and Governor Bush just said that he wants unlimited contributions from individuals.

Maybe that's -- explains why there have been the sleepovers in Austin at the governor's mansion by the pioneers. Maybe that's why it's being set up, the apparatus, right now of the so-called pioneers and other apparatus to raise unlimited amounts of money to funnel into this political campaign coming up in the same way that Clinton and Gore did. That's a matter of published reports.

Campaign finance reform is the key element and an important element and a vital element if we're going to give the government back to the people, and if you're going to allow people like Bernard Schwartz of Loral to give a million dollars and technology is transferred to China, we have got a continuing big problem.

You talk about people staying with me at the governor's mansion. These are my friends, John. These are my relatives. These are people that -- eight people you mention in some scathing press release that somehow questioned my integrity. You talk a lot about the iron triangle, and you're ringing it like a dinner bell with all of those fund raisers with lobbyists in Washington, D.C.

I think that this whole campaign finance reform thing on Senator McCain's part is just another example of the hypocrisy of these politicians. They have shoveled the money in their mouths hand over fist, then walk into the arena professing to be shocked at the discovery that it's there, and then turn to us and say we should give up our right to give money to support the causes we believe in because they don't have the integrity to do their jobs.