AMNA NAWAZ: Good evening.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

Geoff Bennett is away.

On the "News Hour" tonight: Congressman Mike Johnson hangs on to the speaker's gavel in the U.S. House, but a razor-thin majority means more battles ahead.

Residents and workers in New Orleans' French Quarter try to return to some sense of normalcy, as law enforcement continues to investigate the deadly New Year's attack.

JANE COOPER, New Orleans Resident: Terrorists want to instill fear in the people that they target, and that is not what we're going to do here in New Orleans.

AMNA NAWAZ: And manufacturers adopt unconventional hiring practices to close the gap between skilled employees and available jobs.

AMNA NAWAZ: Welcome to the "News Hour."

It was a dramatic beginning to the 119th Congress, as Republicans prepare for unified control in Washington.

And for the House GOP, unified it was, albeit with some delay.

Despite a handful of initial holdouts, Representative Mike Johnson of Louisiana was reelected speaker of the House on the first ballot, earning support from all but one member of his party.

Johnson spoke about his priorities for the coming year.

REP. MIKE JOHNSON (R-LA): After four years of high inflation, we have a big agenda.

We have a lot to do, and we can do it in a bipartisan fashion.

We can fight high inflation, and we must.

We'll give relief to Americans, and we'll extend the Trump tax cuts.

AMNA NAWAZ: Speaker Johnson will now have to wrangle the narrow Republican majority to implement president-elect Donald Trump's agenda.

Lisa Desjardins has been tracking the maneuvering on Capitol Hill all day, and she joins me now.

So, Lisa, a dramatic day indeed.

Walk us through how this vote unfolded.

LISA DESJARDINS: Maneuvering is the right word, Amna.

Walking into the House today, it seemed the odds were against Mike Johnson winning on the first vote, or even today at all.

He had 12, at least, members that I knew of who had serious doubts and were ready to vote no.

And, in fact, he was losing this race for at least an hour.

Let's go over those numbers.

To become speaker of the House, Johnson needed 218 votes, and, initially, he received only 216.

Three Republicans voted against him, voted for someone else.

And those members were members of the hard right.

All three of them, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Ralph Norman of South Carolina, Keith Self of Oklahoma, prominent fiscal hawks, they care about the debt and deficit.

They think that Johnson botched the last funding deal, and they are someone who they believe that he has not been a strong enough speaker.

But over the course of an hour, they kept that vote open.

And thanks to phone calls with former President Donald Trump, two of those members switched their vote, and Johnson was able to become speaker on the first vote.

AMNA NAWAZ: So tell us more about why they changed their minds.

Was it just those calls, as you mentioned, from president-elect Donald Trump, and what does this mean for what comes ahead?

LISA DESJARDINS: You know there's almost never a universal agreement about anything at the Capitol, but there is universal agreement tonight that Mike Johnson is speaker because of former President Donald Trump.

And you could see, even on the House floor, he's someone whose endorsement earlier this week was pinging around, but it was not enough to get a dozen members over the finish line for Johnson.

Instead, we saw a member, Marjorie Taylor Greene, on the phone, on the chamber floor, trying to help negotiate and spread word, get the Trump message out.

And, indeed, the members who talked to Trump said that it was in conversations with him, those two members who changed, that they decided to reverse course.

REP. KEITH SELF (R-TX): We had a lively conversation, and I was very honest with the president, which I think everyone ought to be, that I thought that we needed a stronger negotiating position.

I think we need a very strong Republican Conference, and I wanted some changes.

LISA DESJARDINS: Now, those members told us, one of them told me that they left with the understanding, and been reported elsewhere, that Speaker Johnson would put more hard right members on negotiation teams, but they said, there wasn't any direct promise.

There's been talk of making one member a chairman.

They said nothing like that.

Now, it's just the easy part, I have to say, and to some degree, but, at the same time, Democrats told me they were not surprised that Johnson was in a pickle.

They were surprised he won the first vote, but not surprised that things began with a roller coaster.

Let's listen.

REP. JARED MOSKOWITZ (D-FL): It just seems that the 119th Congress is going to pick up right where the 118th Congress left off.

And what I'd say to my colleagues across the aisle is Democrats like myself are ready to work with them where we can.

LISA DESJARDINS: This is the easy part, as I say, two Republican members expected to join Trump's administration and then the margin will just get narrower, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: So the easier part is behind him now.

Mr. Johnson managed to capture the gavel on that first ballot, but how secure is his speakership?

LISA DESJARDINS: It still could be in danger, depending on how things go.

But, tonight, just in the last hour, the House passed a new rules package that actually will make it tougher for Republicans to oust him.

It will now require nine members, instead of one.

Also, they're getting rid of the Office of Diversity and Inclusion.

And, tonight, we had the House Freedom Caucus members send out a letter essentially warning Johnson that if he doesn't meet their demands going forward, they still will be on top of them and that they could use this new harder-to-use method to oust him.

I also want to mention today was the first day in the Senate.

Worth noting the Republicans there with 53 seats, it's the largest majority for either party in a decade, John Thune now the Republican Senate leader.

Amna, he is the first Republican leader in the Senate since 2007, the first new one, when Mitch McConnell took office.

2007, Amna, that was the year the iPhone was invented, so a generational change happening today in the U.S. Senate.

AMNA NAWAZ: Generational change and a big day on Capitol Hill.

Lisa Desjardins is covering it all.

Lisa, thank you.

LISA DESJARDINS: You're welcome.

AMNA NAWAZ: We start the day's other news with a surprising twist in Donald Trump's hush money case in New York.

This afternoon, Judge Juan Merchan ordered the president-elect to appear for sentencing next Friday.

That's just 10 days before his inauguration.

In his decision, Merchan said he found -- quote -- "no legal impediment to sentencing," but added that Trump would not face jail time.

A jury found Mr. Trump guilty last may of 34 counts of falsifying business records related to a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels.

His lawyers wanted the case thrown out following Mr. Trump's election victory.

He's always denied any wrongdoing.

The soldier who took his life outside of the Trump Hotel in Las Vegas said he was trying to draw attention to the country's problems.

Investigators said they recovered a note from a phone inside the burned-out Cybertruck he detonated, in which Matthew Livelsberger wrote that his actions were not a terrorist attack.

Rather -- quote -- "It was a wakeup call.

Americans only pay attention to spectacles and violence.

What better way to get my point across than a stunt with fireworks and explosives?"

An FBI investigator said today they do not believe that Livelsberger harbored any malice toward president-elect Trump and that he suffered trauma from his service.

SPENCER EVANS, FBI Special Agent in Charge: And although this incident is more public and more sensational than usual, it ultimately appears to be a tragic case of suicide involving a heavily decorated combat veteran who was struggling with PTSD and other issues.

AMNA NAWAZ: Pentagon officials have not said whether Livelsberger had been suffering from mental health issues, but have turned over his medical records to police.

Seven people were injured in the blast, none of them seriously.

In South Korea, authorities are considering their next steps after failing to detain impeached President Yoon Suk Yeol.

Yoon has repeatedly resisted attempts by investigators to question him over his declaration of martial law last month, which they say could amount to rebellion.

Today, officials showed up at Yoon's residence in Seoul to carry out a warrant to detain him, but they withdrew after a six-hour standoff with presidential guards.

Scuffles broke out between police and pro-Yoon demonstrators who'd gathered outside.

SONG JONG-JUN, Supporter of President Yoon Suk Yeol (through translator): We the people cannot agree with this unjust warrant.

If a warrant is issued to detain a sitting president in such an unjust manner, if such precedent is set, what laws should normal citizens follow, and what laws can protect us?

AMNA NAWAZ: Others were disappointed that the attempt to detain Yoon failed, which led to scenes like this, with demonstrators calling for his arrest.

Yoon's future ultimately depends on South Korea's Constitutional Court, which held hearings today on whether to officially remove him from office or reinstate him.

Also in South Korea, hundreds of people had to be rescued today after a large fire broke out at a commercial building in the southern city of Seongnam.

More than 260 firefighters and 80 vehicles were dispatched to the scene.

It took them about an hour-and-a-half to put the fire out.

Officials say about 28 people were injured, but none of them seriously.

The fire department said the blaze began at a restaurant on the building's first floor, but the exact cause is unknown.

In Gaza, Israeli strikes killed at least 42 people overnight and into today.

That's according to hospital workers and emergency responders, who say more than a dozen women and children were among the dead.

Israel said it struck Hamas command centers across the Strip and asserted that measures were taken to limit harm to civilians.

It follows yesterday's wave of strikes that killed at least 50 people.

Some Gazans say they can only hope for peace after 15 months of war.

ABOU MOHAMMAD AL-HADDAD, Strike Witness (through translator): Amidst this rubble, this tragedy in which we are all living, we hope that the free world, that the Arab and Islamic world will look at the Palestinian people and work for a cease-fire to stop this bleeding out of mercy for this afflicted people.

AMNA NAWAZ: An Israeli delegation was set to resume cease-fire talks in Doha today with Qatari and Egyptian mediators.

Hamas officials say they hope to reach a deal as soon as possible.

The head of the Federal Aviation Administration says Boeing still has work to do one year after a panel blew out of a 737 MAX airplane mid-flight.

In an online post today, outgoing chief Mike Whitaker said there needs to be a -- quote -- "fundamental cultural shift at Boeing that's oriented around safety and quality over profits."

Whitaker also said that federal oversight of the plane maker will continue indefinitely.

The FAA grounded all 737 MAX planes with similar door plugs last year and limited production of new 737s.

For its part, Boeing said today that it has taken steps to improve safety, including better training for workers and random quality tests.

On Wall Street today, stocks bounced higher after a shaky start to the new year.

The Dow Jones industrial average gained more than 300 points on the day.

The Nasdaq jumped more than 300 points as well.

The S&P 500 snapped a five-day losing streak, adding more than 70 points.

Still to come on the "News Hour": why President Biden blocked a Japanese company's bid to buy the U.S. Steel Corporation; the U.S. surgeon general calls for cancer warnings on alcohol; and David Brooks and Jonathan Capehart weigh in on the week's political headlines.

The city of New Orleans is inching back to normalcy after the New Year's truck attack that killed 14 people in the famed French Quarter.

Laura Barron-Lopez is back with this report on how the area's residents are coping with the tragedy and what comes next.

JOEY DIFATTA, New Orleans Resident: How could this happen in my neighborhood?

This is where I live.

This is where I work.

Can't happen here.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Joey DiFatta has lived in New Orleans his whole life and in the city's French Quarter for 15 years.

He says the attack on Bourbon Street has left his tight-knit community in shock.

JOEY DIFATTA: A lot of folks don't realize it's not just French Quarter bars and restaurants.

There are residents who live here.

So we're having to cope with this now and to process it.

This is a big situation for us to overcome, but I think we will.

We're going to make it.

We're not leaving.

They're not going to run us off.

We're going to stay.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: DiFatta co-owns a bar in guesthouse just down the block on Bourbon.

JOEY DIFATTA: I'm hoping that this is a catalyst to getting protection, better police protection.

Usually, something like this, you learn from it and then you fix the shortfalls.

And I'm hoping that's what happens with this.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Longtime New Orleans resident Jane Cooper walked home from Bourbon Street with her husband, Bob Heaps, just hours before the attack.

She also wants to see some changes.

JANE COOPER, New Orleans Resident: I think one of the difficult conversations that has to take place in this city is, how do you manage pedestrians and vehicular traffic?

I mean, this is a city that people can walk.

Mardi Gras, there are hundreds of thousands of people here in the streets, and cars are allowed to drive down the streets.

It doesn't make any sense.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Cooper is chair of the French Quarter Management District, created by the state to help the area recover after Hurricane Katrina.

JANE COOPER: You mourn the loss of life, no question about it.

You have to do that.

But terrorists want to instill fear in the people that they target, and that is not what we're going to do here in New Orleans.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Some sense of normalcy has returned to the French Quarter and Bourbon Street, with musicians, bar-goers, and football fans again filling the neighborhood, though with more police and sidewalk protections in place.

Meanwhile, authorities are trying to understand more about the path to radicalization by the suspect, Shamsud-Din Jabbar.

Late on Thursday, the FBI released photos of Jabbar walking through the French Quarter about an hour before the attack and an image of a cooler he placed containing an explosive device.

Today, U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies published a bulletin, saying they're concerned about possible copycat or retaliatory attacks.

It said ISIS had not claimed responsibility for the New Orleans attack, but its supporters celebrated it online; 15 people remained hospitalized at two area medical centers this afternoon, while residents continued lining up to donate blood for the wounded.

Shaquille Lewis, who moved to New Orleans six months ago, was on Bourbon Street just two hours before the attack.

SHAQUILLE LEWIS, New Orleans Resident: It was such a surreal thing to see the celebration, the happiness, the energy that New Orleans is known for at midnight and then wake up the next morning and just see a completely different picture.

But coming out to this blood drive, actually, it kind of feels a little bit more rejuvenated.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Kara Larson is still in shock, but said New Orleans is a city of survivors.

KARA LARSON, New Orleans Resident: This attack has made me feel helpless, and this feels like something that I can actually do.

Like, I can actually give, I can do something.

And in these situations, there's often not much that you can do, and this is something that I can.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: For Dylan Davison, who was born and raised here, it's important to show that his city won't be intimidated by a terrorist.

DYLAN DAVISON, New Orleans Resident: He did it to cause mass chaos and fear, so we need to not give him what he wanted and try to keep our spirits up as best as possible and get the city back to where it needs to be.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: President Biden and the first lady will travel to New Orleans on Monday to visit with grieving families and local officials.

Monday is also Twelfth Night, Amna, which is the beginning of Mardi Gras season here.

AMNA NAWAZ: Laura, you're there in the French Quarter, of course.

Tell us more about what city officials, law enforcement are saying about security measures there and more broadly in New Orleans.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: With the official full reopening of the French Quarter here, Amna, local officials are saying that they are increasing security permanently, not just for large events.

And in a statement today, the New Orleans Police Department said: "To protect the integrity of our security efforts, we won't be sharing specific details about operational plans.

Rest assured, we continuously evaluate and adjust these plans to keep the community safe."

And, as we mentioned, Mardi Gras is beginning here soon, Amna.

And, also, the Super Bowl is coming next month.

So, generally, this is a very busy time for the city.

And many of the residents that we spoke to while we have been here have talked about that tourism can be a bit of a blessing, but also a little bit of a curse here, Amna.

And here in the French Quarter, tourists frequently outnumber the residents that live here.

And the residents that we spoke to said that the increasing number of tourists has at times potentially put a target on the city, but they also -- that tourism industry is a key to the vibrancy of this city and to its uniqueness.

And it's also something that the city's economy depends and thrives on.

AMNA NAWAZ: Meanwhile, Laura, we know the investigation into that attack continues.

What new have we learned about what police and law enforcement are learning?

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Amna, the FBI continues to maintain that the suspect acted alone in this terror attack.

But, today, the FBI was back at his Houston house, searching through it, and they said that they found some chemicals that could have been used to make homemade explosives.

We should also note, Amna, that the names of the 14 victims, not all the names of those 14 victims, have fully been released.

But, today, President Biden confirmed that he has spoken to the families of those victims.

AMNA NAWAZ: All right, that's our Laura Barron-Lopez reporting from New Orleans tonight.

Laura, thank you.

LAURA BARRON-LOPEZ: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: President Biden announced today he would prohibit the sale of one of America's most iconic companies to a Japanese company.

In a statement, the president said that he would block Nippon Steel's purchase of U.S. Steel because -- quote -- "a strong domestically owned and operated steel industry represents an essential national security priority and is critical for resilient supply chains."

But the decision is controversial.

Nick Schifrin is following the story for us today.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Amna, as you said, U.S. Steel is an iconic American brand founded by legendary business leaders Andrew Carnegie and J.P. Morgan in 1901.

Its steel holds up the Empire State Building and San Francisco Bay Bridge, and it helped build the American ships, tanks and aircraft that won World War II.

In December 2023, Nippon Steel announced it would buy U.S. Steel for more than $14 billion and has recently promised to invest $1 billion into U.S. steel mills.

But during the presidential campaign, both candidates opposed the deal.

A senior administration official told me today that the committee that reviews foreign investments in the U.S. split, with the Treasury, Defense and State departments in favor of the deal, but the U.S. trade representative opposed, sending the decision to the White House, leading to today's decision.

For perspective on that decision, we turn to David Wessel, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, and Sheila Smith, fellow for Asia-Pacific studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Thanks very much to both of you.

Welcome back to the "News Hour."

David Wessel, let me start with you.

As I just said, the committee that reviews investments in the United States, known as CFIUS, split between the national security agencies saying that they approved the deal and the U.S. trade representative saying that it opposed this deal.

What does that say about today's decision?

DAVID WESSEL, Brookings Institution: Well, it's pretty striking because the only power the president had to block this deal was to say it was a threat to national security.

But because the committee split, he essentially overrode the national security apparatus and the Treasury.

What it says to me is this is a largely political decision.

Both President Trump and President Biden have stressed the importance of making it in America.

Both of them were courting the steelworkers union in Pennsylvania.

And so this seems to me largely a decision made on political grounds, not economic grounds.

After all, the president said that a domestically owned and operated steel industry is important to national security.

But what Nippon Steel was saying is, we're still going to make it in the United States.

The owners will just be Japanese, which, last time I checked, was an ally of the United States, not an adversary.

NICK SCHIFRIN: So, Sheila Smith, there has been no official Japanese response to this announcement.

But what were the Japanese expecting leading up to this response?

SHEILA SMITH, Senior Fellow for Japan Studies, Council on Foreign Relations: Well, Nick, I think this is a drama that has been unfolding, as you said, for over a year.

And, initially, I think the Japanese government in particular was quite quiet.

They didn't want to get into the fray, and they understand that it was a presidential election year.

But I think as we're getting -- as we got closer to the end of last year, in the last couple of weeks, I think there was an effort to really speak out.

Prime Minister Ishiba said that he hoped that this would go through, this is in the interest of both countries.

The vice minister of the Ministry of External Trade and Industry was a little bit more pointed and said this will affect future Japanese companies who are thinking about investing in the United States.

So, I think the politics clearly was on the minds of most Japanese observers.

I think it's also important to recognize that many Americans don't recognize just how vital foreign direct investment is to the United States, not just from Japan, but from our European friends as well.

Japan is one of the top countries for inbound foreign direct investment.

In fact, it was, I think, in 2023 about $783 billion.

And so this inward foreign direct investment is largely in the manufacturing sector, and so is very helpful to the American economy.

NICK SCHIFRIN: David Wessel, you just heard Sheila Smith mention this.

Could this impact future foreign investment?

And how much of an outlier is this?

In general, the U.S. tends to like foreign investment.

DAVID WESSEL: Oh, you're right.

In general, we seem to want foreign investment.

We love it when European car companies build plants in South Carolina or Tennessee, and we're subsidizing a Taiwanese company to make computer chips in the Southwest.

But I'm concerned that it will discourage foreign investment in the United States.

After all, it will be a big hassle.

And if you can call the Japanese buying a steel mill a national security threat, you can call almost anything a national security threat.

And I think it reflects a kind of growing anxiety and hostility to globalization in all its forms.

And what's ironic about this is that a combined Nippon-U.S. Steel would have been a formidable competitor to the big Chinese steelmakers.

And those are the ones that have been the target of so much animosity, both from U.S. steelmakers and U.S. policymakers.

NICK SCHIFRIN: Sheila Smith, of course, that leads us to the U.S. strategy on China, which has been based largely on creating alliances, enhancing alliances not only between Washington and East Asian countries, including Japan, but between East Asian countries from Japan and South Korea, all the way down to Australia and the Philippines.

And a senior administration official who works on that strategy told me today -- quote -- "I am quite troubled by this decision."

Do you believe this decision challenges the U.S. strategy in Asia?

SHEILA SMITH: I think it challenges us strategy writ large, but particularly in the Indo-Pacific, where we're watching China really exert its influence across maritime Asia, but also really sort of engage in far more extensive economic coercion against our friends and allies in the region as well.

So I think there's a tension here, Nick, I think it's important to see in this deal, the specifics of the deal aside.This is a time when the United States is asking its allies, partners, and friends to do more to enhance the competitiveness of those countries that are competing with China.

This larger strategic competition will define the coming -- the last second part of our century.

And so we're asking allies to do more to help us.

We're asking for friendshoring, which is locating plants and manufacturing capacity in the United States.

We're asking them to think about investing in technological innovation along with us to produce the next generation of technologies.

And we're asking for them to help us end each other with supply chain resilience.

So the economic security component of our national security, along with our allies, is critical to the future security of the United States.

And yet we see a very traditional definition of national security, I think, in this recent decision.

It's the old-fashioned, we need steel.

We can't really allow a foreign company to determine productive capacity.

But there is this broader dimension of the economic security of the United States in which we really do have to partner with our allies and friends, Japan foremost among them.

NICK SCHIFRIN: David Wessel, quickly in the time we have left, what happens next?

Could a U.S. buyer come forward?

And could that U.S. buyer afford to make the investments that Nippon was promising in U.S. Steel?

DAVID WESSEL: Well, I think the first thing we have to watch for is, will Nippon and U.S. Steel sue and say that this is somehow not an accurate -- a legal decision, and that that -- they -- who knows what will happen there.

The second thing is, as you point out, is Calvert-Cliffs (sic), another U.S. steel company, was a bidder for U.S. Steel.

They didn't offer as much money as Nippon, and they don't have the resources that Nippon has.

But that is another option here, that a U.S. firm will buy them.

And that's clearly what President Biden and president-elect Trump hope will happen.

NICK SCHIFRIN: David Wessel, Sheila Smith, thank you very much to you both.

DAVID WESSEL: You're welcome.

SHEILA SMITH: Thank you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Alcohol is the third leading preventable cause of cancer in the United States, following tobacco use and obesity.

Alcohol consumption contributes to roughly 100,000 cancer cases and 20,000 deaths each year.

And a new advisory out today from the U.S. surgeon general says alcoholic beverages should have a warning label about those risks.

U.S.

Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy joins us now to discuss.

Welcome back to the "News Hour."

Great to see you.

DR. VIVEK MURTHY, U.S.

Surgeon General: Thanks so much, Amna.

Good to be with you again.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's a few things that really stood out to me from your findings.

I just want to tick through them for our audience here.

Number one, alcohol consumption, you found, increases the risk of at least seven types of cancer.

Over 16 percent of all breast cancer cases in the U.S. in 2019 were alcohol-related.

And only 45 percent of American adults are aware that consuming alcohol increases the risk of developing cancer.

How did those numbers strike you when you came across them?

And why is awareness of this link so low?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: Well, it was very striking for me when I saw this data.

And it became very clear to me that we have to tell people what the data is telling us and has been telling us more and more firmly for years, which is that there is a causal link between alcohol consumption and cancer risk.

And we put out this advisory calling not only for more public education, but for a change to the alcohol warning label.

There's a surgeon general's warning on alcohol bottles which currently warns people about drinking while they're pregnant and about driving or operating heavy machinery after having alcohol.

And those two things have actually soaked into the general understanding of what we shouldn't do with alcohol.

People should know about the cancer risk as well.

But, finally, I have also called for a reassessment of the guideline limits around alcohol.

Currently, people are told in the guidelines, that they should -- that they can drink one drink a day if they're a woman, two drinks a day if you're a man.

But we... AMNA NAWAZ: Right.

Those are the federal recommendations, right?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: That's correct.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: But what we have found is that, even within those limits, the risk of cancer starts to increase.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: So those need to be reassessed and revised to reflect this important and concerning risk.

AMNA NAWAZ: Do you know what those limits should be, how they should be revised?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: Well, they should be revised downward, is my opinion.

And, overall, what the guidelines committee needs to do is look at the overall health impact of alcohol.

But here too it's worth noting that many people were led to believe over the years, including me when I was in medical training years ago, that alcohol is unequivocally good for your heart.

And we now know that story is actually a lot more complicated, that while there may be some benefits to some types of heart disease with moderate drinking -- and that's still being investigated and adjudicated and debated -- we know that there are other types of heart disease, like heart failure, for example, like atrial fibrillation, which is an abnormal heart rhythm, and even high blood pressure itself, where the risk increases with drinking.

What we do know for certain though, or at least with a high degree of confidence, is this link between alcohol and cancer risk.

AMNA NAWAZ: So do you see a need for alcohol to become more aggressively regulated, similar to the way we now regulate tobacco use, for example?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: Well, I think there certainly needs to be much more public awareness.

And I think that what we need to think about is how the overall impact of alcohol in our health should factor into decisions about how we encourage alcohol consumption.

And this is, by the way, not just a regulatory matter.

I think, from a cultural perspective, I think we also have to think about the messages that we send to people through movies, through books, through other media, that alcohol, for example, is the right way to deal with stress, or that it's the right way to deal with anxiety.

And, look, I hear from people who sometimes say, well, this is just something that I need to cope with a very difficult time.

And, listen, I get that.

We live in stressful times, and there's a lot of difficult things happening in people's lives.

And when you hear data like we put out today that alcohol causes cancer, it's an inconvenient, although important, truth.

But I think that a lot of that has to shift.

And what I do want people to know, individuals, is that less alcohol consumption leads to less cancer risk.

And so if you're drinking one or two times a week, that's likely significantly safer from a cancer risk perspective than drinking one or two times a day.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, we know that new warning labels would require congressional action, right?

Do you have any indication from -- I know the incoming team, your successor, you have been in touch with as the transition unfolds.

Any indication this is something they would like to push through?

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: Well, I'm certainly very open to talking to the new administration, to anyone who's interested in working on this issue.

Here's what encourages me, though.

Typically, cancer prevention has been a bipartisan issue that has received broad support.

Here -- and, look, there are a lot of times people get cancer, and we don't know why it happened.

We don't know how it could have been prevented.

I have, as a doctor, taken care of many patients over the years with cancer.

I have seen the devastation of causes in their lives and in their family's lives as well.

And, here, we have an opportunity to take steps that would reduce the risk of cancer.

And that's by helping people reduce their alcohol consumption.

So this is something that I believe we can come together around.

And, in 1964, when the surgeon general issued the first surgeon general's report on tobacco, the very next year, Congress followed up by passing legislation to put a warning label on cigarette boxes.

They have the power to do that here as well.

AMNA NAWAZ: This is the U.S. surgeon general, Dr. Vivek Murphy.

Always good to have you here.

Thank you so much for making the time to come by.

DR. VIVEK MURTHY: Thanks so much for having me, Amna.

AMNA NAWAZ: Last night, economics correspondent Paul Solman took us inside a community college program that trains the manufacturing workers of tomorrow.

In part two tonight, we hear from employers about their efforts to recruit new talent and whether a manufacturing renaissance is really under way.

ROBERT LENARDI, Meyer Tool: We're really suffering right now.

PAUL SOLMAN: Suffering from a lack of workers, says Rob Lenardi, who runs operations for Meyer Tool in suburban Cincinnati.

And I have been hearing the same complaint for years.

LORI JOYCE, Concrete Pros: The work is there.

PAUL SOLMAN: Lori Joyce a few years ago have Concrete Pros in Northern Ohio.

LORI JOYCE: We just need the workers.

PAUL SOLMAN: The despairing employer sound bites have been legion, and so too the optimistic bites from programs I have covered over the years that are trying to address the problem.

For example, even 10 years ago, South Carolina's BMW plant was doing all it could, according to one of its new recruits.

AMANDA ECHOLS, BMW Manufacturing: They pay for your college, first of all, so you will get a degree when you're done.

You make good money while going to college.

I just did not see anybody turning it down, really.

PAUL SOLMAN: And yet most young people do.

ROBERT LENARDI: There's a vacuum there, and we are always on the lookout for bringing people in.

And even when we're starting from scratch.

In some cases, people had no idea what they were getting into.

And they come along really well.

PAUL SOLMAN: So America's manufacturers still can't find enough workers, despite the promise of president-elect Donald Trump.

DONALD TRUMP, Former President of the United States (R) and Current U.S. President-Elect: This new American industrialism will create millions and millions of jobs, massively raise wages for American workers and make the United States into a manufacturing powerhouse like it used to be many years ago.

PAUL SOLMAN: Manufacturing has been touted as the next big thing in jobs by both parties, all of America one big maker space, as in the past, when factory workers made up something like a third of the labor force.

That number is now down to less than 10 percent.

But there are some 19 million working-age men out of the work force entirely, not having even looked for a job in the past 12 months.

A manufacturing revival, it's argued, will lure many of them back to work, men without a college degree promised higher paying jobs just waiting to be filled.

ANDREW HOLLOWAY, Meyer Tool: I was just driving past, going down the road.

I saw a big sign saying that they were hiring, basically, and decided to put my name in, and it worked out.

PAUL SOLMAN: Indeed, Andrew Holloway, who quit college, got paid while training on the job at Meyer Tool.

And it's a sophisticated gig.

ANDREW HOLLOWAY: We got CMMs here probing down to a ten-thousandth-of-an inch.

PAUL SOLMAN: CMMs, coordinate measuring machines, and you don't need to go to college to operate one.

NIKALANI HALL, Meyer Tool: I got here is through a referral program.

PAUL SOLMAN: Same for Nikalani Hall, a logistics coordinator before a friend referred him to Meyer.

Schooling?

NIKALANI HALL: I think the best experience you can get is more hands-on, compared to learning in a classroom.

PAUL SOLMAN: Moreover, there's a strategic reason to revive manufacturing in America.

RYAN AUGSBURGER, The Ohio Manufacturers' Organization: We're seeing the recognition of vulnerabilities of global supply chains.

PAUL SOLMAN: Ryan Augsburger, head of The Ohio Manufacturers' Association.

RYAN AUGSBURGER: And it seems to be driving more, we call it reshoring, but it's investment that was offshored a generation ago, back into the U.S. PAUL SOLMAN: So the jobs will be there, says Joe Resko, supervisor at noisy metal manufacturer Worthington Enterprises.

Earplugs are standard issue.

JOE RESKO, Worthington Enterprises: I believe we will continue to grow.

There's a lot of people out there that want to come in and contribute to good companies.

And, in America, they want that to happen, right?

PAUL SOLMAN: Maybe, but the company sure has to work hard to recruit them.

JOE RESKO: We have created great partnerships with our local high schools.

We actually have signing day, if you have seen the college athletes that sign.

And then we employ them inside our businesses, inside our factories, and we promise them an opportunity for a job.

PAUL SOLMAN: And because kids are into video games: JOE RESKO: We do virtual reality, the virtual glasses.

We take local high schools and show them the manufacturing facility.

PAUL SOLMAN: But why are Ohio's firms only now making such strenuous efforts?

I asked the head of the Manufacturers' Association.

Because they're more desperate?

RYAN AUGSBURGER: I think that the desperation has brought them together, yes.

PAUL SOLMAN: But if they build it, will the kids come?

These are seniors on the welding track at Kilgore High School in East Texas oil country.

But with all the high-paying oil related jobs, why not more kids in the program?

CHELSI ROCHA, Student: They might not know how many opportunities you can get from that line of work.

PAUL SOLMAN: Chelsi Rocha.

CHELSI ROCHA: And they may not know the benefits of going into manufacturing.

MORGAN DOWELL, Student: I think you have got to find the right ones that still have that motivation.

PAUL SOLMAN: Morgan Dowell.

MORGAN DOWELL: As a whole, I think a lot of them are less motivated, or they're motivated towards an easier job.

PAUL SOLMAN: Zevin Dent agrees.

ZEVIN DENT, Student: From my generation, I think people -- to be honest with you, I think people have less motivation to work because there's so many other avenues of work that they could do online.

PAUL SOLMAN: Like they see online, says Kiefer Hunter.

KIEFER HUNTER, Student: On social media, I see stuff where people make millions of dollars just off a phone or a computer.

And that seems like the easier way to go.

PAUL SOLMAN: Teacher Misty Lewis says the mood is shifting some, at least in Kilgore.

MISTY LEWIS, Teacher: For welding specifically, we have got teachers that were in the industry and now they're teaching.

They do a great job of telling our kids, this is where you can go.

These are the companies.

I think that's why it's growing.

PAUL SOLMAN: In most places, however, it doesn't seem to be growing fast enough, especially given all the Baby Boomers aging out of the manufacturing work force.

But maybe a worker shortage won't be a problem if A.I.

and robots rush in where young folks prefer not to tread, at Worthington Enterprises, for instance.

JOE RESKO: We can automate, and we continue to look to automate.

PAUL SOLMAN: And thus the age-old question, which I put to Stanford's Erik Brynjolfsson.

ERIK BRYNJOLFSSON, Stanford University: I have always been frustrated by this.

PAUL SOLMAN: The idea that high tech will eventually eliminate manufacturing jobs entirely.

ERIK BRYNJOLFSSON: It's probably the most common question I get, is, are robots going to eat all the jobs?

And I always say no.

I do point out that technology has always been destroying jobs and always creating jobs, but that second part is important, that there's this dynamism in the U.S. economy.

As some jobs get automated, new jobs get created, and right now there's no shortage of demand for labor, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

PAUL SOLMAN: OK, too many old folks hanging it up, not enough young people, or even robots to replace them, a manufacturing renaissance without the workers to sustain it?

Not so fast, says economist Robert Lawrence.

The historical data suggests no such revival, as he documents in his new book, "Behind the Curve."

ROBERT LAWRENCE, Harvard Kennedy School: As countries develop economically, the share of manufacturing jobs tends to rise, and then it peaks.

PAUL SOLMAN: So the long-term outlook might not favor factory jobs after all, because, historically, they peaked long ago.

ROBERT LAWRENCE: After that, there's a downward trend in manufacturing employment shares, and this isn't just true of the United States.

It's true of most countries, almost every developed country in the world.

PAUL SOLMAN: And, in fact, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has projected the number of manufacturing jobs to be added over the next eight years, less than 1 percent.

DONALD TRUMP: We will lead an American manufacturing boom.

We're going to have a manufacturing boom.

PAUL SOLMAN: But president-elect Trump, like the Democrats before him, is betting otherwise.

Our friends at Meyer Tool make life-or-death jet engine parts, tooled so precisely, they can't even be off by one-thousandth-of-a-human hair.

But they depend on foreign-made machines.

ROBERT LENARDI: These are Japanese machines making parts for a Pratt & Whitney geared turbofan engine.

PAUL SOLMAN: Which goes into?

ROBERT LENARDI: An Airbus A320neo jet.

PAUL SOLMAN: Which is made?

ROBERT LENARDI: In France.

It's a global community working on specific machine components.

PAUL SOLMAN: So, right now, if I come to you and say, hey, look, let's make a Makino machine here in America, how long before we could pull that off, and do we possibly have enough human power now coming out of schools?

ROBERT LENARDI: It's going to take a lot of engineering talent to be developed to design equipment like that.

It would take five, six years easily.

PAUL SOLMAN: Assuming there's a job surge in manufacturing at all.

For the "PBS News Hour," Paul Solman in Kentucky and Ohio.

AMNA NAWAZ: Mike Johnson's reelection as House speaker revealed a small, but loud minority in his conference that could threaten Republican priorities.

On that and the other political stories shaping the start of the new year, we turn to the analysis of Brooks and Capehart.

That is New York Times columnist David Brooks, and Jonathan Capehart, associate editor for The Washington Post.

Great to see you both.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Hi, Amna.

DAVID BROOKS: Good to see you.

AMNA NAWAZ: Busy day on Capitol Hill.

Let's talk about Mike Johnson.

David, he manages to hang on to the speaker's gavel, but not without a fight, those few members who did choose not to back him before they ultimately did back him on the first ballot.

What does all of this say to you about the stability of their majority and his speakership?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, first, on his speakership, last week, I happened to read Susan Page's biography of Nancy Pelosi, because that's the kind of wild New Year's Eve I had.

And one of the things Pelosi says to Susan is that being a mom of five young children was the best preparation for speaker, because you had to pay attention to five childish people with self-interest.

And being speaker is kind of like that.

And I have to say he was sort of an accidental speaker.

He came in when Kevin McCarthy was deposed after a long hellish ordeal.

AMNA NAWAZ: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: And I think he's done way better than I ever expected him to do.

He's managed the caucus pretty well.

He's managed Trump pretty well, no small feat.

He's managed the Democrats OK.

He did some bipartisan deals on budget and other things.

I think he's been, policy, more serious than I would have anticipated, supporting aid for Ukraine and other -- his own independent views on this.

And so I think people looked at him and thought, not so bad, even -- and so there was a rump rebellion of three people for like 45 minutes.

But that's tiny compared to what Kevin McCarthy was facing.

And so my hope is that they have got a pretty decent speaker, all things considered, and the Republican Party is in less of a nihilistic mood now that Donald Trump's going to be in the White House they may actually want to govern something.

And for that, you need a speaker, you need a coalition.

My final Pelosi quote is she would say in -- strength is in our diversity, but power is in our unity.

And that's a good Pelosi line.

And if they can get some unity, they will have a little bit of power.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, how do you look at it?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Good luck with that.

I mean, I do have to agree with David that Speaker Johnson is way better than I thought he would be a year ago.

I thought his move to not gavel out the vote, but to hold it open and twist the arms and win the speakership still on one ballot was a very smart move.

But this idea that they are serious about governing, I'm not so sure, given what we saw last month, well, just a couple of weeks ago, when it came to the budget.

And they just punt -- great job in punting the -- whatever the sports metaphor is, down to March, punting everything to March.

But it's one thing to heed the commands of Donald Trump when he's not president.

It's another when he's president and you're trying to govern, and you're trying to govern with a caucus that doesn't want to, say, eliminate the debt ceiling, but the president does.

AMNA NAWAZ: Yes.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Those are going to be some of the frictions that Mike Johnson -- that are going to put Mike Johnson's skills to the test with a President Trump in the White House.

AMNA NAWAZ: And, David, to that point, you mentioned it's three people or so, but three people really matter with this very, very slim majority.

Most Americans don't care about the speaker battle, right?

They care about how this body is going to govern.

How do you see them being able to govern when they do have to eventually pass a budget in the months ahead?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, that's going to be tough.

The phrase, by the way, is punting to the batter's box.

That's what they know.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Even I know that's not true.

DAVID BROOKS: But so, for example, Chip Roy was one of the -- he actually voted for the speaker, but he's a rebel leader.

And he was on Steve Bannon's show today or some time this week saying he wants everything they do to be -- and not add to the deficit.

AMNA NAWAZ: Right.

DAVID BROOKS: And so if there are going to be tax cuts, A, they will do this thing called dynamic scoring, where they pretend the tax cuts pay themselves.

But you still can't get close to not adding to the deficit when you cut taxes.

So will they really insist on that?

And Chip Roy was talking about Medicare cuts, Medicare cuts.

Like, that's like political, not -- third rail doesn't begin to cover what that is.

And so how serious are they about this kind of stuff?

They claim they're serious, but there's no way to get from here to there and do this -- any of the things Trump wants to do and not add to the deficit.

AMNA NAWAZ: Jonathan, should Democrats step in to help Republicans get the votes they need to pass some of this legislation?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Only if it makes sense, only if it's -- if it helps the American people, only if it's something that they can argue to -- within the caucus into the American people that, yes, we're going to help Speaker Johnson, we're going to help the Republicans because this is in the best interest of the country.

They're the ones who are very interested in governing.

And so with Mike Johnson, with Speaker Johnson's right now one-vote, one-seat majority, he's going to need Democrats.

So I think it's incumbent upon Speaker Johnson to come to Democrats with legislation they can actually support.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's also this context in which they are working, which is in a country that doesn't even unite in the wake of a terrorist attack on American community the way it used to.

We saw the attack in New Orleans.

We saw President Biden's response, which is what you would expect from a leader.

And then you saw president-elect Trump, who came out and immediately blamed President Biden, blamed the law enforcement agencies, blamed the immigration system, which makes no sense because the suspect is not an immigrant.

But it's a different context entirely to the last Congress they were working in, David.

What do you make of that response?

DAVID BROOKS: Well, I think this is a long national nightmare, with the rise of conspiratorial thinking and the overpoliticization of everything.

The guy in New Orleans seems to have been a self-radicalizing radical terrorist.

And that doesn't mean there's some conspiracy.

That doesn't mean he actually had contact with ISIS.

That doesn't mean the FBI could have done anything.

People who are self-radicalizing are sitting in their basements for self-radicalizing.

They're very just very hard to catch.

The case of the guy in Las Vegas is just completely perplexing.

He was apparently very pro-Trump.

He was a munitions expert, active military.

So there's just -- people are weird and they -- troubled people do troubled things.

That doesn't mean there's any political meaning to this at all.

That doesn't mean there's any conspiracy.

It's just we have got 330 million U.N. beings in this country and they're going to do some weird stuff.

And Trump has the tendency to politicize everything and to conspiracize everything, is a malady of worry.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Great.

I'm glad you stuck the landing there, because I was going to say we cannot have this conversation without talking about the impact of a former president and incoming president, the same person, who jumps in with no facts, who, because he's the president, former president, incoming president, people listen to him.

And so it's incumbent upon our leaders to be responsible, to not get out ahead of the facts, to bring some calm to a situation that is very scary and very harmful and hurtful to people.

We're going to go through four more years of this with a president who pops off in the middle of the night, early hours of the morning, with no facts whatsoever.

That's how we got -- that's -- this is how we got here.

AMNA NAWAZ: There's another headline, David, I want to get your take on, which is the news today that President Biden announced that he would block the sale, the $14 billion acquisition of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel by Japan's Nippon Steel.

Both U.S. Steel and Nippon Steel have blasted that decision.

But was this the right move in these final days in office for him?

DAVID BROOKS: Yes, I think really no.

We need a strong -- some sort of industry, remnant of a steel industry in this country.

Nippon Steel is a powerful acquirer who was going to spend nearly $3 billion reinvesting in plants in the Mon Valley and places in Western Pennsylvania and around the country.

Japan is one of our firm allies we need to be close with creating alliances against China.

And, to me, what's happened is two things.

One, the union leadership is not where the union members are.

The members often wanted the deal.

The union membership leadership in Washington did not.

Second, there's just been a rising tide of xenophobia and nationalism in our economic policy.

And that carries -- started with Trump, but carries over to Biden.

And I just think it's a big mistake.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, next week, meanwhile, I need to ask you both about this moment we will be marking as a nation, which is the passing of former President Jimmy Carter.

Our politics, our nation obviously very different right now to the times that he was living and leading in.

But I just want to ask each of you -- Jonathan, you first -- what are you in this moment taking away from the legacy of President Carter?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Well, I was a little kid when Jimmy Carter was in the White House, and I actually wrote him a letter during the Iranian hostage crisis, because I couldn't understand why everyone was so mean to the president.

He was doing everything he could to get them out.

I wrote this in the letter, and I got a response, not from the president, but from someone in the White House.

I do have it somewhere, in a box somewhere.

But I tell that story only to say this is the first time I wrote -- I have ever written to a president.

But in looking at his life, he spent, if my math is right, 10 times longer out of the White House than he did inside.

And I remember, as a kid, I knew people were yelling at him.

People didn't like him.

People hated him when he was in the White House.

And yet, 40 years after the fact, the glow around him, because of all the work he did in the post-presidency, is something to see, where you have Democrats and Republicans praising him for what he did, especially outside of the White House.

I can't imagine we would - - we will see that again.

AMNA NAWAZ: David?

DAVID BROOKS: Jonathan is such a nicer person than I am.

I wrote him a letter saying, why can't you deregulate the trucking industry, you weakling?

AMNA NAWAZ: Different letter.

Different kind of letter.

DAVID BROOKS: No, I didn't write that.

No, I mean, he -- the stuff on Habitat for Humanity, he brought faith into politics in a very admirable way, I thought.

I think it influenced the way he thought about human rights.

It certainly influenced his post-presidency but, he was not overbearing with it.

But he was from a time when you go back and read those essays.

I would read a bunch of columns at the time of his presidency.

It was just so long ago.

It was such a different culture, where people were really -- it was a much better time.

I hate to think of decline, but we have had such a political decline.

I also read from a sports columnist that Babe Ruth hit more home runs in Jimmy Carter's lifetime than any active player today.

So that's a long time ago, when Jimmy Carter was born and lived.

AMNA NAWAZ: The sports references leave Jonathan confounded, I know.

I know.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: ... batter's box.

AMNA NAWAZ: We have covered a lot of ground.

We will have much more remembrances next week as well.

David Brooks, Jonathan Capehart, thank you so much.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Happy New Year.

AMNA NAWAZ: Well, be sure to tune into "Washington Week With The Atlantic" tonight on PBS.

Moderator Jeffrey Goldberg and his panel discuss Kamala Harris' role in certifying the results of the election that she lost to Donald Trump.

On "PBS News Weekend": An online financial scam known as pig butchering that's fleeced its victims of billions of dollars in recent years.

Now, before we go tonight, we are saying goodbye to a dear member of our PBS News family.

Our vice president of operations, Matt Speiser, is taking his well-deserved retirement after nearly a decade with PBS and almost 40 years in this business.

Matt spent 30 years at CBS, ABC and CNN before joining PBS.

And you, our viewers, you have seen his work in action every single day without ever knowing it.

He has spearheaded massive projects like presidential debates and major party conventions.

He helped keep us on the air as we moved the show to our living rooms and basements in the pandemic.

Most recently, he helped to lead the design, construction and our move into this new studio last year.

And despite all that stress, Matt has always had a ready smile, a willing ear, and a way to fix whatever needed fixing that day.

To say that we are grateful is a colossal understatement.

To say that we will miss him is as well.

Matt, here is to beautiful beach views and more time with Elaine and your daughters ahead.

Thank you.

And that is the "News Hour" for tonight.

I'm Amna Nawaz.

On behalf of the entire "News Hour" team, thank you for joining us.