A resolution honoring the life and legacy of President Jimmy Carter and commending President Jimmy Carter for his life-long career of public service, humanitarian leadership, diplomacy, and courageous advocacy.

— 197 — Department of State The ideas and recommendations herein are premised on the belief that a rigorous adherence to the national interest is the most enduring foundation for U.S. grand strategy in the 21st century. AUTHOR’S NOTE: Thanks to the entire State Department chapter team, the leaders and staff of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, and my colleagues at The Heritage Foundation’s Davis Center. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the following colleagues: Russell Berman, Sarah Calvis, James Carafano, Spencer Chretien, Wesley Coopersmith, Paul Dans, Steven Groves, Simon Hankinson, Joseph Humire, Michael Pillsbury, Max Primorac, Reed Rubenstein, Brett Schaefer, Jeff Smith, Hillary Tanoff, Erin Walsh, and John Zadrozny. — 198 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise ENDNOTES 1. U.S. Department of State, “About the U.S. Department of State: Our History,” https://www.state.gov/about/ (accessed March 9, 2023). 2. The balance of employment is 2,149 eligible family members and 50,223 locally employed staff. U.S. Department of State, “GTM Fact Sheet: Facts About Our Most Valuable Asset—Our People,” Global Talent Management, December 31, 2022, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/GTM_Factsheet1222. pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 3. U.S. Commission on National Security, Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change, Phase III Report, February 15, 2001, p. x, http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/nssg/PhaseIIIFR.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023). 4. See Brett D. Schaefer, “How to Make the State Department More Effective at Implementing U.S. Foreign Policy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3115, April 20, 2016, https://www.heritage.org/political- process/report/how-make-the-state-department-more-effective-implementing-us-foreign. 5. Historically, roughly one-third of ambassadorial appointments have been political appointments, although Republican Administrations have generally had a higher ratio of political appointments than Democratic Administrations. 6. U.S. Constitution, art. 2, sec. 2, cl. 2. 7. News release, “Secretary Blinken Launches the Office of China Coordination,” U.S. Department of State, December 16, 2022, https://www.state.gov/secretary-blinken-launches-the-office-of-china-coordination/ (accessed March 9, 2023). 8. Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S. Code § 1101 et seq., § 1253. 9. See Michael Pillsbury, The Hundred Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace the United States as a Global Superpower (NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, 2016). 10. For additional context regarding how countering China fits in a more robust U.S. strategy, see James Jay Carafano et al., “Foreign Policy: Strategy for a Post-Biden Era,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3715, July 21, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/foreign-policy-strategy-post-biden-era. 11. The Article X for China would follow George Kennan’s Article X for U.S.–Soviet competition. See George F. Kennan, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” Foreign Affairs, July 1947, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ russian-federation/1947-07-01/sources-soviet-conduct (accessed March 22, 2023). 12. Dean Cheng et al., “Assessing Beijing’s Power: A Blueprint for the U.S. Response to China Over the Next Decades,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 221, February 20, 2010, https://www.heritage.org/asia/ report/assessing-beijings-power-blueprint-the-us-response-china-over-the-next-decades. 13. Eric W. Orts, “The Rule of Law in China,” Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 34, No. 1 (January 2001), https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1686&context=vjtl (accessed March 9, 2023). 14. U.S. Department of Defense, Indo–Pacific Strategy Report: Preparedness, Partnerships, and Promoting a Networked Region, June 1, 2019, https://media.defense.gov/2019/Jul/01/2002152311/-1/-1/1/DEPARTMENT-OF- DEFENSE-INDO-PACIFIC-STRATEGY-REPORT-2019.PDF (accessed July 28, 2022). 15. See Jeff Smith, “South Asia: A New Strategy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 3721, August 29, 2022, https://www.heritage.org/asia/report/south-asia-new-strategy. 16. Emma Bryce, “Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?” Live Science, August 3, 2019, https://www.livescience. com/66008-why-oil-in-arctic.html (accessed February 9, 2023). 17. “Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, updated January 26, 2021, p. 6, https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41153/177 (accessed March 9, 2023). 18. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology, “Snapshot: Overcoming the Tyranny of Distance in the Arctic,” April 20, 2020, https://www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2020/04/20/ snapshot-overcoming-tyranny-distance-arctic (accessed February 9, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Contributions to International Organizations, 2021,” September 20, 2022, https://www.state.gov/u-s-contributions-to-international-organizations-2021/ (accessed March 9, 2023), and U.S. Department of State, “U.S. Contributions to International Organizations, 2015,” November 1, 2016, https:// www.state.gov/u-s-contributions-to-international-organizations-2015/ (accessed March 9, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of State, Report on the Commission of Inalienable Rights, https://www.state.gov/wp-content/ uploads/2020/07/Draft-Report-of-the-Commission-on-Unalienable-Rights.pdf (accessed March 9, 2023).

— 71 — Central Personnel Agencies: Managing the Bureaucracy progressives have sought a system that could effectively select, train, reward, and guard from partisan influence the neutral scientific experts they believe are required to staff the national government and run the administrative state. Their U.S. system was initiated by the Pendleton Act of 188310 and institutionalized by the 1930s New Deal to set principles and practices that were meant to ensure that expert merit rather than partisan favors or personal favoritism ruled within the federal bureaucracy. Yet, as public frustration with the civil service has grown, generating calls to “drain the swamp,” it has become clear that their project has had serious unintended consequences. The civil service was devised to replace the amateurism and presumed corrup- tion of the old spoils system, wherein government jobs rewarded loyal partisans who might or might not have professional backgrounds. Although the system appeared to be sufficient for the nation’s first century, progressive intellectuals and activists demanded a more professionalized, scientific, and politically neutral Administration. Progressives designed a merit system to promote expertise and shield bureaucrats from partisan political pressure, but it soon began to insulate civil servants from accountability. The modern merit system increasingly made it almost impossible to fire all but the most incompetent civil servants. Complying with arcane rules regarding recruiting, rating, hiring, and firing simply replaced the goal of cultivating competence and expertise. In the 1970s, Georgia Democratic Governor Jimmy Carter, then a political unknown, ran for President supporting New Deal programs and their Great Soci- ety expansion but opposing the way they were being administered. The policies were not actually reducing poverty, increasing prosperity, or improving the envi- ronment, he argued, and to make them work required fundamental bureaucratic reform. He correctly charged that almost all government employees were rated as “successful,” all received the same pay regardless of performance, and even the worst were impossible to fire—and he won the presidency. President Carter fulfilled his campaign promise by hiring Syracuse University Dean Alan Campbell, who served first as Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Com- mission and then as Director of the OPM and helped him devise and pass the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA)11 to reset the basic structure of today’s bureau- cracy. A new performance appraisal system was devised with a five rather than three distribution of rating categories and individual goals more related to agency missions and more related to employee promotion for all. Pay and benefits were based directly on improved performance appraisals (including sizable bonuses) for mid-level managers and senior executives. But time ran out on President Carter before the act could be fully executed, so it was left to President Ronald Reagan and his new OPM and agency leadership to implement. Overall, the new law seemed to work for a few years under Reagan, but the Carter– Reagan reforms were dissipated within a decade. Today, employee evaluation is back — 72 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise to pre-reform levels with almost all rated successful or above, frustrating any rela- tion between pay and performance. An “outstanding” rating should be required for Senior Executive Service (SES) chiefs to win big bonuses, but a few years ago, when it was disclosed that the Veterans Administration executives who encouraged false reporting of waiting lists for hospital admission were rated outstanding, the Senior Executive Association justified it, telling Congress that only outstanding performers would be promoted to the SES in the first place and that precise ratings were unnec- essary.12 The Government Accountability Office (GAO), however, has reported that pay raises, within-grade pay increases, and locality pay for regular employees and executives have become automatic rather than based on performance—as a result of most employees being rated at similar appraisal levels.13 OPM: Merit Hiring in a Merit System. It should not be impossible even for a large national government to hire good people through merit selection. The government did so for years, but it has proven difficult in recent times to select personnel based on their knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA) as the law dictates. Yet for the past 34 years, the U.S. civil service has been unable to distinguish con- sistently between strong and unqualified applicants for employment. As the Carter presidency was winding down, the U.S. Department of Justice and top lawyers at the OPM contrived with plaintiffs to end civil service IQ exam- inations because of concern about their possible impact on minorities. The OPM had used the Professional and Administrative Career Examination (PACE) gen- eral intelligence exam to select college graduates for top agency employment, but Carter Administration officials—probably without the President’s informed con- currence—abolished the PACE through a legal consent court decree capitulating to demands by civil rights petitioners who contended that it was discriminatory. The judicial decree was to last only five years but still controls federal hiring and is applied to all KSA tests even today. General ability tests like the PACE have been used successfully to assess the use- fulness and cost-effectiveness of broad intellectual qualities across many separate occupations. Courts have ruled that even without evidence of overt, intentional discrimination, such results might suggest discrimination. This doctrine of dispa- rate impact could be ended legislatively or at least narrowed through the regulatory process by a future Administration. In any event, the federal government has been denied the use of a rigorous entry examination for three decades, relying instead on self-evaluations that have forced managers to resort to subterfuge such as preselecting friends or associates that they believe are competent to obtain qual- ified employees. In 2015, President Barack Obama’s OPM began to introduce an improved merit examination called USAHire, which it had been testing quietly since 2012 in a few agencies for a dozen job descriptions. The tests had multiple-choice questions with only one correct answer. Some questions even required essay replies: questions

— 321 — Department of Education through the pandemic’s Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief (ESSER) Funds,4 which relied on ESEA formulas. The same year, the department spent more than $2 billion just to administer Title IV of the HEA, which authorizes federal student loans and Pell grants. It provided $22.5 billion in Pell grants, and it oversaw outlays of close to $100 billion in direct student loans. Since 1965, Congress has continued to layer on dozens of new laws and pro- grams as federal “solutions” to myriad education problems. In 1973, it passed the Rehabilitation Act,5 and, in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)6 to address educational neglect of students with disabilities. In 2002, it cre- ated the Institute for Education Sciences to consolidate education data collection and fund research. Congress has also enacted a series of Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Acts, including Perkins V in 2018.7 Congress could have, and once did, distribute management of federal education programs outside of a single department. But for those interested in expanding federal funding and influence in education, this unconsolidated approach was less than ideal, because a single, captive agency would allow them to promote their agenda more effectively across Administrations. Eventually, the National Educa- tion Association made a deal and backed the right presidential candidate— Jimmy Carter—who successfully lobbied for and delivered the Cabinet-level agency. When it was established in 1979—becoming operational in 1980—the agency was supposed to act as a “corralling” mechanism. Carter signed the Department of Education Organization Act8 into law in 1979, believing in part that it would reduce administrative costs and improve efficiency by housing most of the federal education programs that had proliferated in the wake of Johnson’s War on Poverty under one roof. It has had the opposite effect. Instead, special interest groups like the National Education Association (NEA), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), and the higher education lobby have leveraged the agency to continuously expand federal expenditures—a desirable funding stream from their vantage point because federal budgets are not constrained like state and local budgets that must be balanced each year. By FY 2022, the department’s discretionary and mandatory appropriation topped $80 billion, not including student loan outlays. Each of its programs has attendant federal strings and red tape. One recent example is the Biden Administration’s requirement that state educa- tion agencies and school districts submit “equity” plans as a condition of receiving COVID recovery ESSER funds in the American Rescue Plan (ARP).9 This exercise led to the hiring of numerous new government employees as the rules were pro- mulgated, plans were created after collecting public feedback, and those plans were eventually deemed satisfactory. The next Administration will need a plan to redistribute the various congres- sionally approved federal education programs across the government, eliminate — 322 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise those that are ineffective or duplicative, and then eliminate the unproductive red tape and rules by entrusting states and districts with flexible, formula-driven block grants. This chapter details that plan. As the next Administration executes its work, it should be guided by a few core principles, including: l Advancing education freedom. Empowering families to choose among a diverse set of education options is key to reform and improved outcomes, and it can be achieved without establishing a new federal program. For example, portability of existing federal education spending to fund families directly or allowing federal tax credits to encourage voluntary contributions to K–12 education savings accounts managed by charitable nonprofits, could significantly advance education choice. l Providing education choice for “federal” children. Congress has a special responsibility to children who are connected to military families, who live in the District of Columbia, or who are members of sovereign tribes. Responsibility for serving these students should be housed in agencies that are already serving these families. l Restoring state and local control over education funding. As Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law. l Treating taxpayers like investors in federal student aid. Taxpayers should expect their investments in higher education to generate economic productivity. When the federal government lends money to individuals for a postsecondary education, taxpayers should expect those borrowers to repay. l Protecting the federal student loan portfolio from predatory politicians. The new Administration must end the practice of acting like the federal student loan portfolio is a campaign fund to curry political support and votes. The new Administration must end abuses in the loan forgiveness programs. Borrowers should be expected to repay their loans. l Safeguarding civil rights. Enforcement of civil rights should be based on a proper understanding of those laws, rejecting gender ideology and critical race theory.