Senators John Fetterman and Dave McCormick: Bipartisanship, Money in DC, Datacenters, Graham Platner

Now a look at the state of Pennsylvania. It's one of the most important states in this presidential race. Both Pennsylvania Senators, Democrat John Fetterman and Republican Dave McCormick, voted in favor of the bill. In this situation, we both agree that shutting our government down is wrong for our commonwealth and for our nation. So we're looking for ways to find common ground, and when we disagree, we disagree. But when we can agree, we agree. Our votes are about country over party at this point. Well, we're trying to set a good example, because we have lots of disagreements, but we trust each other, we like one another, and we look for ways to work together. I thought the best way to kick this off was to actually give both of you a few moments to just say what's on your mind. And so I think in the rules of parliamentary decorum, Senator Fetterman, as a senior sitting senator from Pennsylvania, maybe you can start. I'm proud to call Senator McCormick a good friend. And now things are very more polarized, and now I refuse to engage in the kinds of extremism. And we're going to fight together for Pennsylvania and for our nation right now, and we're going to continue to have conversations like this, whether in Pennsylvania or here across. So we have to find a better way forward through a lot of the circumstances. So I think we have to find a better way forward. Dave? Yeah, I think one of the benefits of being in a place like Pennsylvania is that the voters expect us really to find ways to work together. And if you put this moment in perspective, I think it's probably the most consequential moment in all of our lifetimes. And in fact, I think it might be the most consequential moment in humankind, which is a big statement. So much change is happening. It's artificial intelligence, of course, but it's really how that's affecting everything, life sciences, defense, energy. It's a moment of enormous change. And that change creates a lot of anxiety that lends itself to polarization and extremes. And so if there was ever a time where it's more important to find ways to work together, it's now. So we've found ways to work together on everything from energy policy to fentanyl, the fentanyl crisis, to anti-Semitism in Pennsylvania and across the country, to drone technology. And these are issues that are of such consequence that you can't get there by just being with your team. You have to be able to find common ground. And we've really looked for ways to do that. Yeah, I think he could confirm. Pennsylvania keeps you honest now. And now I'd like to remind everybody that we are the only two people in our respective cycles that flip seats. Both parties want that. We want to flip seats. It's like, well, we've done that because I think we've rejected the extreme kinds of views. And now it's better to work together for Pennsylvania or for our country for right now. and AI is really, really important. And it will sometimes will put me at odds where the direction that the Democratic Party seems to be moving in that now. So now, moratorium for data centers. For me, that's a China first kinds of policy for that. I'm going to continue to push back that. I'm not going to describe that as a scourge. I'm going to describe that as an incredible new opportunity. And now, you know, my friend, he organized an incredible symposium in western Pennsylvania that brought AI together and energy. And that's two parts of things Pennsylvania really brings to that table in this very, very important conversation. I think that we're at this point now where, is it fair to say, as goes Pennsylvania, as goes the rest of the country, in the sense that if you can find common ground in the state on these very thorny issues, maybe the rest of the country can find ground, and the vice versa is also true. If you guys can't find resolution, what are the odds that California and West Virginia, making it up, find resolution? So what is it like, a day in the life in the U.S. Senate, trying to find these compromises? Because from our perspective, outside in, a lot of the time it just seems like nothing is happening. Dave. Yeah, I think if you step back, I know we look very similar, but we have we have many similar backgrounds. We have similar backgrounds in the sense that we both grew up in rural Pennsylvania and had similar, you know, similar childhoods. And John went into public service. I left, went to West Point, went to the military. But we both came back from those rural backgrounds. But what's interesting in Pennsylvania is 19 electoral votes. And it's a microcosm of the country. You have these two big urban centers, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, which are mostly Democrats. You have these rural areas that are mostly red, mostly Republican. And you got to build a coalition across those to win. So ironically, a lot of the same people that voted for Senator Fetterman voted for me and voted for President Trump. And that's the coalition you have to build. And in particular, it is a working families coalition. So the thing that's ironic is that even though all the national unions would have endorsed Kamala Harris and Bob Casey, my opponent, the rank and file, two-thirds of the rank and file, the electricians, the pipe fitters, the steam fitters voted for me. Same with him. They voted for him. So we actually, even though we have a lot of differences in our parties, we have come together around that coalition. And that coalition includes a very significant Latino turnout, a very significant African-American turnout, the highest African-American turnout in 2024 in the last 30 years. And so that coalition, I think, is up for grabs. Who wins that coalition in Pennsylvania and who wins it in the country, I think, will dictate the future to a large degree and 2028 and beyond and so that's what we're working on together because we're trying to build that coalition to do good things together in pennsylvania the uh senate is at an all-time low in terms of approval rating we have the lowest approval rating of a president in history after biden who was extremely low rated you guys can't control the debt the american populace believe we'd be in a golden age right now they're not seeing it inflation is soaring the president seems to be running amok, has no check in the House, and you guys are responsible. Tell us what you really think. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln. Well, and $40 trillion in debt, and you're spending more than ever. So the American people, I think, are extremely frustrated with both parties. It's great to see you guys come together, but what are you going to do to bring back some balance between the branches of the government? because this does not seem to be going in the right direction for anybody but the people in this room, which is to say the top 10 percent of our society. Well, I mean, for me, if you referenced inflation is soaring, well, just recently, that's primarily driven by energy prices right now. Now, why are those energy prices high? Well, because the president decided to hold Iran accountable, and now I'm the only Democrat that actually agrees with that. That was not a radical idea for a Democrat. Every single person running for president as a Democrat said, we must never allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, and now we have the opportunity to hold them accountable. Why? That's why I continue to vote against these War Powers Act now too so for inflation yes now absolutely no one thinks five dollars a gallon is is great but if you allow iran to become nuclear you know that's going to seem quaint you know if five dollars a gallon holding it up too so what's driving this economic conversation overall right now so for me i think what's most important now uh turn everything as a partisan thing And that's the danger where if we despise Trump more than we are concerned about Iran becoming a nuclear power, that will have profound implications for not just in that region, but also for a global stage right now. That's the difficulty moving forward now. I've said this in the podcast for All In. Who's the leader's party? I'm like, that's tedious. 100%. Our party is defined by the opposition of whatever he comes out for. I've said Trump comes out for ice cream and lazy Sundays. We're going to hate that shit. And we're going to vote it down. Now, we all have a bandwidth and we all have a platform. I feel like you have to discriminate. I don't care about the ballroom. If you want to build it, sure, great. I was there for the the White House correspondent dinner, and I saw how dangerous that was for our leadership. But I don't care about the reflecting pool. But now we can't stop talking about all this other kind of. So we can really focus on the thing that's more important when now it's become all just distracted by the smear small, small ballgame. Dave, is there a path to resolution? I mean, like, you guys are going to be forced to confront the filibuster, which is this critical bulwark that sort of leaves some sort of attempt at finding common ground out there. But there's a lot of pressure to end it. I think, Senator Fetterman, you said you'd be supportive of ending the filibuster. Is that where we're going, to just total tribalism? Yeah, let's talk about the filibuster. Let's talk about that. The entire Democratic Party, including myself, we were so wrong about the filibuster. In my cycle in 2020, every single Democrat identified we have to eliminate the filibuster. Seems like it makes sense now. And thank God, thank God we had people that stood there, whether it's Senator Manchin or Senator Sinema. You know, history has vindicated their wisdom to do that thing. And now Democrats, we all wanted to get rid of them. We all wanted to get rid of it in 22. And 2025, we love it. And now it now it reinforces people to work together with both sides. Now, if you turn the Senate into a smaller version of the House and majority majority, right now, that would have profound, profound implications for now. So now someone that'd be the first person to announce, hey, I was so wrong about that. That's one of the kinds of hill I would die on now to defend the filibuster. How important it is to the Senate, but also Senate for the minority rights, whoever that happens to be in that time. You know, that's what's so critical, what the filibuster is to governance here. Well, I would say, first of all, Congress, but lots of institutions right now have very low public approval, very low trust. That's a huge problem. It's across all areas to church, schools, business in many cases. So we've got to rebuild trust in our institutions. And one of the ways you do that is through your own personal conduct. So one of the things we can do is try to set the example. If you look at my voting and his voting, I'm an unapologetic conservative. I vote as a conservative. At the same time, that doesn't mean you can't work together. So we look for every opportunity for bipartisan legislation. So I've got more bipartisan legislation than anybody. We've collaborated on dozens of things together because you can do both. And the filibuster, I mean, it is frustrating as a business person. I was in business for 25 years. So frustrating the pace of how slowly things move. But I do think it creates the requirement, the impetus to get things done. And I would disagree with you. I think a lot of big things have been done. If you look at the energy agenda, we can't win the AI race without energy. And we made huge progress on energy. I'm hoping we're going to get permitting reform, which would be the best way to do it. I think we're going to get permanent reform, which would be the biggest economic lever we could possibly get done over the next six months or the next two and a half years. We've closed the border. We've stopped the flow of fentanyl. We had 4,000 people who died in Pennsylvania in the last year of the Biden administration. It's 1,600. This year, it's down 60 percent, those same statistics nationally. And then there's huge intractable problems like the debt and the deficit, which are existential, that we're not dealing with. And that's not a product so much of the filibuster, not the filibuster. That's a product of the polarization. It's a product of the polarization of our country and both sides taking advantage of anybody willing to look at a problem in a hard way. My question was, though, about the bottom half of the country in the K-shaped economy we're in and how it's not working. And you guys are phenomenally unpopular with that group of Americans. So is there a way to make this a- You're talking about wealth concentration? Yeah, wealth concentration. The bottom half is not happy with- No, no. On both sides. No, just a huge- It's a huge problem. And I don't think I listened carefully last night. I mean, I just want to tell you, that is a huge, huge problem that's growing. That median income in Pennsylvania is $52,000 a year. When you guys say AI or AI anxiety, I mean, these folks, they've been down this road once before when a bunch of smart, rich people said, we got the answer. It's called globalization. And what happened in my hometown is there was a mill of 2,000 people that got gutted. It's now 100 people. So there's enormous anxiety, but it's because- It's because there's no path to getting ahead. And everybody in this room, the last 10 years has been the greatest 10 years in the history of humanity for those who have assets. So do you have a plan? Yeah, well, there's got to be- And what is it? There's got to be a number of plans. Well, do you have a plan? Because it's not just going to be me, it's going to be us. Because right now, listen, I am a beneficiary of capitalism. I have been wildly fortunate because of capitalism. But we are going to lose capitalism, unless we find a combination of ways to address it. So what are the ways? The Invest America accounts is a perfect way, right? Where you are building opportunity for the next generation. The school choice provision in the Working Families Tax Credit Act, $1,700. Everybody in this room can give $1,700 every year. Billions of dollars that are going to go into a school choice for making sure everybody has equality of opportunity. If you don't do that at maximum, you're going to lose. You're going to lose. And this moment leaves the majority of Americans behind. We're not going to be able to get anything done. Spend more money on programs. Yeah, spend more money, but not spend more money, but spend more money in giving people opportunity. So the reason those two accounts are great, it takes it out of the government, circumvents the government. It's based on incentives and choice by people that have wealth. It's sort of Andrew Carnegie brought to present day, take that wealth, put it in the hands of those who will benefit from it. But it's your choice. It's not dictated by the government. I think that's going to have to be part of the answer. Does anyone in Congress subscribe to the notion that I think is rooted in empiricism that the more we spend, the harder it is for people to have economic mobility? And I think that there's a simplified notion that government has to play a role in driving people's progress. And the truth is, the more government intervenes in markets, the more inefficient and the more expensive those markets get. And therefore, the more inaccessible wealth and value creation is for any individual. And the freer the market, the less the government intervenes, the less the government is spending, the less the government is buying, the better things get for people, generally speaking. And it seems to me every time I visit D.C., I leave profoundly unhappy because I meet with people in Congress. And this is a notion that seems to be diametrically opposed to their viewpoints, that everything is about doing more for people. Government needs to do more on both sides of the aisle versus if the government did less, things would get more affordable, things would get more accessible, and people would have greater economic mobility. Well, I mean, you know, talk about the government. Now, we had not just one, we had two shutdowns. Both were historic in terms of their length. You know, we couldn't just agree on very basic things. And now we've shut the government down, collectively, for over 120 days or whatever now. And that's one of the things, as a Democrat, I refuse to engage in that thing. That's a core responsibility as a senator, keep our government open, and for the love of God, find a way to agree enough to keep things open and put things in risk and make our country less safe. You know, I'm proud to be a capitalist. And now capitalism is the one system that has proven to raise life's standards. There are hundreds of humans across the globe, you know, and now people in my party, you know, now we're having bad IDs refuse to die. And now we're talking about socialism and communists right now. We have candidates now, I am a communist, these things. And it's like, that seems interesting. You know, what's your point now? Talk to anyone that's had to live under those kinds of regime. Now, they're all absolute capitalists right now. And that's absolutely the problem. You know, the market will has fixed a lot of these kinds of problems, you know, and I'm not terrified by AI. Am I concerned about it? 100% right now. And we're now mythos and other concerns about mass hacking, and weaponizing it that way. You know, that's coming. And now I think that should belong to America. We know that, you know, America should build that chassis. And now that's why if we turn my party into where AI is the scourge or the cancer, I refuse to reject that because it's going to transform the world. Now it can come from us or it can come from China, whose side are you're going to be in. And a lot of the people that oppose that now a lot of that opposition is funded by a lot of these groups that are aligned with CCP. So that's part of the danger right now. So that's the dangerous time right now. And like, Democrats now in my party, the problems are billionaires. Well, but we love the billionaires that fund, you know, our kinds of views and our views not too. I know target people, you know, people, you know, call out Bezos or whatever. It's like, you don't don't do that. Don't call out private citizens, identify them the problem. You know, they create jobs. If you've never created a job, don't criticize people that that have really changed our our economy for the better. Honestly, why is Graham Platner doing so well in the polls? I mean, he's the only candidate that has a literal Nazi tattoo on his chest. Yeah, yeah, I know. What does history tell us comes next if he wins? If a candidate like that can win, what does that tell us? Yeah, well, when I was a kid, if someone had a Nazi tattoo, you probably could call them a Nazi sympathizer, you know? And someone now, and now just yesterday we discovered that he was sexting with up to a dozen women, and now Democrats, now some are saying, well, what's the big problem? You know, they're constantly just ignoring a lot of these things. And now this is a guy that just a couple of years ago described an American soldier in a firefight with the Taliban. Dumb mother that doesn't deserve to live. That's his words. Who does that? Who lurks on there? And, you know, he's really a tough guy behind a keyboard. And I can't, you know, explain other than that it's a backlash to how partisan things are. Someone like that should have been in this race right now. So here we are, you know, a guy that was sexting up to a dozen women. You know, he's getting a swallow on. And now we're kind of just, oh, what's the big deal? Why not confront that and just then call that out? And that's the danger if now these kinds of views. Could you imagine if either one of us described an American soldier as a dumb mother that deserves to lie? Or he described our army as absolute trash, absolute trash. He described the American army as absolute trash. And that's a viable candidate now. And that's a bizarre place to live right now as a Democrat. If he wins, what happens to this? What does that tell us about where we're headed? Well, look at what I mean, what's happening there is, I mean, there's problems on both parties. But certainly what you've seen on the left is two things. I think it's indisputable. One is a migration to these terrible ideas of socialism and Marxism and so forth. But in addition to that, this really rise of anti-Semitism and hatred. And the tell here of how pervasive it is, is the people who are now campaigning in Maine, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren. These are mainstream Democrats that have now learned. So far to the left. And I think I think this is going to be if if those candidates win and that becomes validation of the viability of that stream of thinking in the Democratic Party, I think it's horribly unhealthy for America. Ironically, the best thing we want, if we're Republicans, is a strong Democratic Party that keeps us honest and keeps us in check with good ideas. And and that's not happening. And as I said, we have problems. We have problems on both sides. But I think that lurch to the left is really frightening, a frightening thing. Well, and then let's say and you just brought up Israel, you know, that's a profound betrayal for my party on Israel or not to, you know, the people that are winning a lot of these elections, you know, you know, one of their signature view is anti anti-Israel and borderline, just, you know, raw anti-Semitism and from a lot of these candidates now, too. And that's that's exactly where we're heading. So I think that's a profound betrayal for our party on Israel or not, too. You know, the people that are winning a lot of these elections, you know, one of their signature view is anti anti-Israel and borderline, just, you know, raw anti-Semitism and from a lot of these candidates now, too. You know, one of their signature view is anti anti-Israel and borderline, just, you know, raw anti-Israel and borderline, just, you know, raw anti-Israel and borderline. You know, one of their signature view is anti anti-Israel and borderline, just, you know, raw anti-Israel and borderline. have a lot of activists they're very noisy i mean do you ever i mean i appreciate your maverick streak and your independence but do you how do you think about that risk well a seat or a job is is not i i'm always going to be i'm going to be honest and i'm always going to have uh you know my votes or my opinions are going to be what i happen to believe is is true you know uh it's not a seed worth trying to maintain if I'm going to lie or to pretend that things aren't absolutely true. Yeah, absolutely. I can be primaried. And there are some Democrats that are angry at me. If they're angry at me for supporting Israel, yeah, they have at it. If they're angry at me that I think it's wrong to shut down the government, that's fine. If they're angry at me because I refuse to call him a Nazi or a fascist or a piece of shit, I'll never do that. You can hold me in that too. But what's really strange in that the truth is somebody that votes like a 93% of the Democratic line. And if I changed my party, there was a lot of palace intrigue that I'm going to change the party, and I'm never going to do that. And if I did, I could change, you know, I could announce right now, I am changing it right now. My votes aren't going to change. My views, i wouldn't vote any differently things i happen to believe and and if if democrats run me out of the party they will be attacking a committed democrat that votes your line 93 percent of the time because we're in a new year time right now that i think things are more important than trying to i i know what pays the bills as a democrat now literally what campaigns are based on trump literally in their campaign commercials yes and in their emails and outrage you know it's constant rage bait i i refuse to engage in that and i'm going to be the an example of what i think is entirely appropriate and and a lot of the conversations are driven by people that represent very you know safe blue states now oh like that's why pennsylvania keeps people honest here and people are going to remember in 28 oh yeah oh i want to be bipartisan i want to get along you know like people don't believe you you know like they remember what what they've said and how people behave uh so that's where i'm at so yeah i could be primary but what's more important to be be truthful what i think are important values and remind people that the things we used to believe in you know i i think i want to i want to just move to just domestic policy and economics for a second. Dave, you said this incredible story in the green room, which maybe you can start off with, which is the quantum of people that reach out to you every week to mostly complain about various companies. But just use that as an insight, maybe to talk about AI, because that's a huge part of your state. It's also a huge part of the American economy. And maybe compare it to what happened with shale and oil because there's a lot of commonalities i think it's quite interesting yeah it's uh i don't know if he gets the same amount but on an average week we have 14 million people in pennsylvania almost on an average week i'll get something like a hundred thousand outreaches to me uh letters emails phone calls and across different issues and you can almost see when the activists are mobilizing groups to come and make the case on certain things And I do a call every two weeks. It's sort of an open mic where you get about 10,000 people that show up. And the number of data center calls, data centers have become a much bigger and pervasive thing. And just to put this in perspective, David was there. Dina and I hosted an energy and innovation summit in Pennsylvania last July. We had $92 billion of investment committed. We had the energy CEOs, the AI CEOs, big investors, global investors. We had Senator Fetterman came, Governor Shapiro came, the president came, the cabinet came, it was amazing. And that's, by the way, that's what you need. Winning is a team sport, and winning in AI is a team sport, and you need all those players at the table. So it was a real success. And since then, there's been enormous investments made in Pennsylvania. I visited several of the cities in Pennsylvania. One just the other week, Homer City, 4.4 gigawatts of power from a coal plant that's being transitioned to natural gas. 3.4 gigawatts is going to go into a data center complex, a gigawatts going back on the grid to hopefully bring down energy prices. So this is happening across Pennsylvania, but the opposition is growing. Is there any organic part to this? Because it's very hard to understand what's happening when you have these kind of dark forces, dark pools of money. Is there a legitimate, like, I don't want to have this in my backyard for X, Y, and Z? There's enormous misinformation, and I think that misinformation is largely being driven by China and outside forces. And then there's just legitimate not understanding, not knowing. And we need to do a much better job of making sure that the outlines of what these data centers mean to communities is clear. And frankly, there needs to be a much clearer covenant of what it means. If you're going to have a data center. If you're going to have a community, and you're a township supervisor, here's what you know. They're going to bring more energy they're going to use. They're going to protect their water with closed loop. They're going to give this much to the tax base. They're going to build schools or infrastructure, whatever they're going to build. Isn't that first part the only thing that matters in people's minds? I just don't want my energy to go up? No. Because as soon as you get through that, they move to the next thing, which is water. And then the schools are going to be crowded. So the schools are going to be crowded. Because there will be new jobs? No, because there will be new people, and they're not making the connection to the tax base. The roads are going to be crowded. So there's a whole comprehensive case that needs to be made. And what Chamath was making the point, we went through this before. John and I both lived through this with fracking. Huge campaign against, huge misinformation, lack of understanding. And 15 years later, I'd say there's pretty broad-based support for fracking. Yeah, there's unlimited money. I mean, you know, someone finds some. You know, a B-roll kind of a comment, and they put 10 million guys behind it, and they can turn you into the most extreme kinds of things. It's ironically, you know, originally people tried to convince people that I'm a socialist, and now people are like, now I'm MAGA, or whatever. I'm like, no, I haven't changed. My views are the same. And, you know, I would tell people, energy is national security. Look at what's happening in, you know, in Europe and other parts. Now, if you don't have energy security, then your national security is in danger. Now, AI is coming. And what he's done, he created this amazing symposium to remind people that, you know, we need both. We need energy, and Pennsylvania produces a lot of that. And now, also, AI is coming. Otherwise, we'd still be using this Spinny Jenny, or whatever that's called. So, why do we talk about data centers? Because people, forces are describing them as a scourge or a cancer that's going to bankrupt you or destroy your community. Now, why do we have that right now? Because this is something that's going to transform our society. You know, absolutely, there could be a downside. But overall, it's going to be much more productive, and that's going to create new opportunities. Now, I refuse to become a party of Luddites. And now, that's, you know, that's honest. If I had to vote now, claim that that's all cancer, it's danger, and it's all downside, then I'd be lying, and that's why I'm saying, Republican or Democrat, you know, that's a fact. These things are very, very important, and that's why I'm going to. Can I just double-click on this thing when you compare it to shale? So, in shale, I'm going to assume that when shale was escalating in importance, the pushback were from corporate interests that would have economically lost out. That's what I'm guessing, the majority. Environmentalist. Environmentalist. Yeah, environmental. But it seems like in AI, we're dealing with foreign state actors. Yeah. Is that fair? Is that, is it as reductively simple as that? Well, if you go to those two parts, one was the campaign of misinformation, and the other is a lack of understanding. There's much more of a campaign of misinformation from outside forces this time around. But what happened in the, you know, in the case of shale, methane destroys the water table, you know, don't want these in our backyards. What happened, of course, was these enormous royalties for the farmers. We're the fourth largest natural gas reserves in the world. If we were a country, Pennsylvania would be number four. This is the economic engine for our state. Our state is the second largest energy producer in the country. So, this unlocks everything for Pennsylvania. And as those jobs started to be created, so you saw the economic benefit, the misinformation about the methane in the water table, it became clear, slowly and much too long, 15 years later, we're now in a place where I bet 80% of the people would support fracking. Last night event, you know, you described that we have six to eight months ahead of China, right? Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, now, you know, you know, my party is driving for a moratorium for data centers. Like, I mean, do you think China doesn't love that, you know, like, and that's why they're, you know, they're parts behind some of the driving this view. You want to give that race to China, it's coming, it's coming, it's the choice. Do you want America to build that chassis or do you want the Chinese to do that? You know, like, yeah, you know, data centers can make some things with some challenge. And at the core of that, John, is what you said earlier, which is it starts with TDS and then it goes with give China AI. I would say this, vote me out if you think, it's okay to give China a benefit to win the AI race. Vote me out, you know? And, you know, but it's like so-- Your favorite person in the audience, my wife is clapping for you. Oh, yeah, yeah. Yeah, no, but he says-- That's exactly the way I see it. I mean, that's exactly the way I see it as well. So, we have great bipartisan agreement here. So, Dave, I was at your summit last year, the Energy and Innovation Summit where you announced $90 billion of new investments. The thing I was-- I was struck by was how broad-based the representation was at that summit. You not only had software companies, you had hardware companies, you had manufacturing, you had robotics, you had energy, nuclear fracking. And then, most interestingly, is that you had the trades there. And that's when a light bulb went on for me that, oh, this is a blue-collar boom because this is a construction boom and blue-collar workers are really going to benefit. And the trades who represented there spoke to that. And since then, we've had hundreds of thousands of new jobs, construction jobs created, and 25% to 30% wage increases for construction workers. And so, I'm curious, does that help make the cause more popular in Pennsylvania? Are those trades, are the unions still on board with this? Or have the politics of that changed it all over the past year? It's a great question, and it's been extraordinary. So, just in the last 15, 16 months, and these are related. By the way, it's not just energy projects and data centers. It's U.S. Steel and a next-generation mill, it's Eli Lilly building a new plant, it's Hanwha and the Philadelphia shipyard. But they're coming in part because of the data centers and the energy projects. And so, I've spent a lot of time with the trades lately. The most secure job in Pennsylvania right now is a secure welder. I mean, is a seasoned welder. An electrician. An electrician. Honestly, these folks are coming out, they're getting the training, they're in their late teens, early 20s. They're making more than a hundred grand a year in these sites, and they can't build, they can't hire quick enough. They can't find enough people to meet the demand. And the data centers, I mean, I've looked closely at that. There's one coming in Berwick, Pennsylvania, right next to where I went to high school. The way to think about it is there's sort of four buckets of economic activity that comes, jobs that come. There's, of course, the deals that come with them. But there's the thousands of jobs to build the data centers, and the energy that goes side-by-side. So, these are five, 10,000 folks on the site. Then there's the hundreds of people to run the data centers. Then, of course, every three to four years, the hardware and everything in the data centers gets upgraded, which brings in hundreds, sometimes thousands of jobs. There's the energy that's going side-by-side. Then there's the restaurants, the hotels. I met with the trucking association the other day. They guess that it's about 100,000 people. It's about two logistics jobs for every one job in a data center. These things are economic engines. So, once you get that covenant straight, people are willing to make the decision. And if a township supervisor or a county commissioner, no senator is going to tell them to do this. This has to come from the ground up in terms of making the decision. But once they decide to do that, it's a huge engine for their communities. If they decide not to do it, my point is, "Okay. What's your plan? What is the plan?" In Pennsylvania, we've been losing people for 20 years. We can't get our kids to stay. This is like a rebirth. It's amazing what's happening, but we've got to break through the misinformation and- Friedberg, do you have a final question? If not- Well, I mean, I think on this point, why do you think it's so difficult for the Democrats to embrace the facts on the ground? Because you have an empirical story to share about job creation, value creation, and there's no empiricism on the other side. that there's job displacement or job loss and the white-collar jobs, which is generally part of the argument. Well, two things. I would say the notion of AI broadly is getting munged with the notion of data centers in a narrow thing. Data centers, of course, are an enormous component of this, but those two things are unrelated. Second, I don't think it's just Democrats. Like, I mean, we have— No, the America First movement is now in this horseshoe exactly aligned with the Democrats' opposition. We have the far left and the far right converging on an anti-data center. We even have some besties who occasionally buy into the jobs apocalypse, so— No, no, I'm job displacement. Never misrepresent me, Sachs. I will call you out every time. I just believe there'll be job— You could also use the word job mobility. I'll finish my sentence, please. I'm speaking. Job displacement is occurring, and that new jobs need to be created to fill that in. And I think that's the blind spot of the people who have— Trump dedication syndrome is that they will never actually do anything that would modestly criticize the president. And that's part of the challenge. I want to have a last question. Well, I just— Just about the amount of money being donated by special interests. Do we need to get money out of politics? Because that seems to be the root of a lot of these problems is that, you know, billionaires can give 50 million, 100 million, 200 million, whether it's Soros or friends of ours. It feels like there's way too much money. Does that have to change for this type of issue, you know, around data centers, et cetera, and special interests? And how do we—can we ever get there? Yeah. Well, I would say of the five things I would do to fix America right now, that wouldn't be in the top five. But yes, conceptually, I'd like to get money out of politics. There was—my race was $500 million. We raised $200 million on my side, $300 million on the opposition side. $500 million. We couldn't— $500 million. We couldn't keep up. I was record before. At 22, we raised—you know, and my race was $300 million, $330 million. And now that's quaint. Wait until 26. Wait until 28. This is going to look like quaint. And that's the thing. Either we need to get money out or this group needs to be donating a lot more to both of us. Or get rid of the primary process, too, you know? And now open to other people. And now these primaries, they identify the extreme kinds of views and put out someone, you know, and that's part of it now, too. Collectively, $300 million were spent to destroy our reputations. Think what $300 million could do for Pennsylvania or for people. That was spent to destroy reputations. You know, you're terrible. I am terrible. That's the absurdity of the American population. Politics, right. On that note, I actually want to say both of you are incredibly rational and reasonable and incredible Americans. So I just want to thank you. Senators Fetterman and McCormick. Very much appreciate it. Thanks, guys. Thanks, buddy. Thanks, Rob. Good to see you, man. Thank you. That was good. Thank you. Thank you.