New Year, New Congress? Not so much.

Image from CNN's Political Ticker

This week, with all the expected pomp and tradition, the newly-elected 114^th Congress convened for the first time. Not only were 13 new Senators and 58 new Representatives sworn in, but both houses of Congress are also in Republican control for the first time since 2006. With a fresh crop of legislators, the Republican Party has the potential to really change things up, set the political agenda for the next two years—and make a case for a Republican president in 2016.

Things started to get interesting prior to January 6^th, and the upcoming vote for House leadership, when a small, but significant group of representatives announced they would not be voting for John Boehner for Speaker of the House. Boehner has held the position of Speaker since 2011, and successfully held off a dozen party defectors in 2013. The list of Republicans joining the “dump Boehner” wagon grew to 25, with representatives taking to Facebook to announce their petition for a new Speaker. Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) wrote on Facebook: “A fresh start often requires change, and I believe that change should start with the election of a new Speaker.” Ultimately, however, the conservative scheme failed, with a majority of House Republicans confirming Boehner.

And here we get to the crux of the matter—can a Congress really be “new” if all the leaders are the same? Sure, we have 71 new legislators, but they are all beginners—inexperienced and unlikely to have a lot of influence. Congress’ organization is all about hierarchy. Representatives with the most experience—and time in office—get spots on the most powerful committees and the committee leadership positions. First-time congressmen and women won’t be given the plumb positions because they don’t have the connections and they haven’t proved themselves capable legislators yet.

A fiery member of Congress will probably get amplified by the media and become a maverick favorite, but at the end of the day, leadership positions really do matter. Congressional leaders have a tremendous amount of influence. In the House, Committee heads determine which bills actually make it past the committee to the Rules Committee for a vote. The Rules Committee is the most powerful committee in the House by far. It controls many aspects of how the House runs—from how long representatives have to discuss a bill on the floor, to how many bills can come up for vote each day—and even which bills get voted on at all. The Speaker essentially controls this committee by supporting favorable representatives to fill its slots. Boehner’s power was in full display when he confirmed that the Rules Committee had agreed to vote out two of its members who acted against Boehner—Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) and Rep. Richard Nugent (R-Fla.).

Although Boehner’s retributive action hasn’t been finalized, things don’t look good for his enemies in the House. And it doesn’t look like we’re going to have a fresh perspective in either house of Congress. Not only was Boehner reconfirmed, but Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who served as Senate Minority Leader from 2007-2015, was also voted in as Senate Majority Leader. On the Democratic side, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) retained their powerful positions as well.

We should feel more than a little worried about leadership stagnation in Congress. Not only has this Congress passed fewer bills than any other Congress in recent history, but friction between members of Congress and President Obama has also led to Congress’ embarrassing approval ratings. Only 14% of Americans approve of Congress—and in August, for the first time, 51% of Americans revealed that they don’t approve of their own members of Congress. Yikes. The only way to reverse these trends is to welcome change and buck the status quo—starting with congressional leadership. Although Congress missed its opportunity to select new leaders, we can only hope that our representatives will commit to some New Years’ Resolutions: tackling the tough issues like Social Security and immigration, and compromising when it will lead to a better outcome for Americans.

Beirut to Benghazi: A Timeline of Embassy Attacks

We mourn, but then we must move forward.

The loss of American lives is always a tragedy. When these losses occur overseas, especially in areas of conflict, we get angry and demand answers. Never has this been more true than with the September 2012 attacks on the US Consulate in Benghazi, Libya that left four Americans dead. Since then, Republicans have been on an obsessive hunt for any information that might place blame for the tragedy on the White House. The response has been overwhelming and just a tad excessive. Both former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and current Secretary John Kerry have been called to testify to Congress. The House of Representatives has conducted more than 13 hearings, written more than 25,000 pages of documents and held more than 50 briefings about the events in Benghazi.

On August 6, 2014, the House Intelligence Committee released yet another report on Benghazi. According to Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, the senior Democrat on the intelligence panel, "Our investigation found the intelligence community warned about an increased threat environment, but did not have specific tactical warning of an attack before it happened." Essentially, the events were not a result of malicious intentions—only a tragic misread of the available information. This conclusion matches every previous Congressional report and hearing.

Despite these findings, a House Select Committee created in May 2014 will continue to call hearings to examine evidence from the attacks. Apparently, Republicans think there is more to find. It has been almost two years since the Benghazi tragedy, and yet, Congress continues to spend time and taxpayer money rehashing the same information over and over.

But it wasn’t always this way. Unfortunately, attacks on US embassies are not a new phenomenon. The Global Terrorism Database, a service of the University of Maryland, College Park, has compiled information on over 125,000 terrorist attacks across the world. Their data shows that there have been more than 30 deadly attacks on US embassies and consulates since 1970. The timeline below shows attacks that resulted in at least two casualties. Note that the events in Benghazi technically occurred over two days in September 2012.

Timeline includes attacks on US embassies and consulates since 1970 with at least two casualties.

So how have similar situations been handled by Congress? On April 18, 1983, with President Ronald Reagan in office, a suicide bomber drove a truck into the US Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon. The resulting blast killed 63 people, 17 of whom were Americans, including top CIA personnel. This incident is still the most deadly terrorist attack on American diplomatic ground. On October 23, 1983, another bomber drove a truck of explosives into a US Marine compound in Beirut, killing over 240 servicemen. Despite the fact that Congress was controlled by Democrats, the White House was not blamed for the attack. The Democratic Speaker of the House, Tip O’Neill, ordered a hearing and investigation—just one.

The investigation concluded, finding that “very serious errors in judgment were made”, and the document suggested urgent security measures for President Reagan to implement overseas. Just months after the report was written, in March of 1984, another US embassy was bombed in Beirut. The CIA’s station chief, Bill Buckley, was kidnapped, tortured and murdered. In the wake of this third tragedy in Beirut in eighteen months, Congress didn’t hold any hearings. All of the culpability went to the perpetrators, not our government.

There are a lot of lessons here. First, safety measures can always be improved. In both the Beirut and Benghazi bombings, the intelligence community had intercepted information that could have prevented the attack. Unfortunately, in a dangerous world, those particular threats were not given priority. But time cannot go backwards, and we cannot save the four brave Americans we lost in Libya. We should always adapt and advance our security measures, but we must go on.

In the aftermath of the Beirut attacks, Congress was outraged—at the terrorists—at the people who brutally ended the lives of so many. A thorough investigation followed, and the resulting report identified specific weaknesses in our defense. Our security tactics evolved as a result and Americans were safer. And the episode was over. No subpoenas. No endless hearings and briefings. No political cudgel to hold over the opposition party throughout midterm elections. Instead, there was a resolution.

My advice to Congress is this: We mourn, we investigate, we improve; but then we move forward. We must—otherwise our enemies succeed by keeping us stuck in the past.