U. S. Senate Candidate Bert Mizusawa (R)
Campaign Website: https://bertforsenate.com/
Candidate Questionnaire from Radio IQ:
This candidate did not respond to our full questionnaire. However, we were able to ask the following questions during an interview on Thursday, Oct. 22.
Q: What's your stance on the use of Flock Safety and other automated license plate readers?
So, I think each Flock camera or sensor can be calibrated to get different bits of information. And if, let's just say for example on one end of the spectrum, they may just read license plates, and they may only keep the data for 24 hours. That's very minimally intrusive. On the other hand, they may be getting biometrics of people's faces and tracking them around. And so I think when you say Flock cameras, that doesn't mean the same thing. There's a whole spectrum of possibilities and potential.
And so, I think it should be left up to the local communities in general, because some local areas are high-crime areas, and they need to have an effective deterrent or a way to apprehend criminals. But other areas, there's hard legal crime—hardly any crime—in certain suburban areas, you probably don't need them. So, you know, the police departments and other law enforcement agencies who have decided to deploy these things need to be supervised and checked. And so, I don't think there's one size fits all for this, just like people ask me about tariffs, it's the same thing. I say, "You know what? How many different countries we have agreements with, how many different goods and services?" So, I think it can be calibrated.
And with respect to Flock cameras, I think I believe that the local communities are in the best position to make that tradeoff. That's the optimum tradeoff for that particular community. And, but if obviously, you know, if you're a voyeur and you're using it for illegal purposes, that should be punished as a crime. So, I know people hate it because it's an invasion of privacy, but if they have people breaking into their houses, and then they use this technology to apprehend the perpetrators, and, you know, they're able to get the stolen goods back, those people would probably love it. And so, I would prefer to leave that tradeoff to the local levels of government to the extent that we can.
Q: What do you see as Congress's role in acting as a check and balance on other branches of the federal government?
I think it's Government 101 level stuff. It is an equal and independent branch compared to the executive and the judicial branch. I happen to have a very strong background in national security, which is the area where the president traditionally has been the strongest. So, I think I will provide a more effective check than the average senator. I would be the highest-ranking military officer in the U.S. Senate. I'd also be the most highly decorated combat veteran in the U.S. Senate. So, I think I would have a lot of influence when it comes to checks and balances against the occupant of the White House.
Q: And just to be clear, just to follow up on that line, what exactly—I mean, so what would be Congress's role then?
Can I follow up a little bit? I did work directly for the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee in the 1990s when we had a Democratic president, so Bill Clinton at the time. And so, I was helping to fulfill that role at that point in time. And the big issue that day was what we called engagement and enlargement. You know, the Soviet Union imploded in the early '90s, and we were deciding what we would do with all these former Eastern Bloc countries, whether we would welcome them into NATO or we would do something lesser. And that was a constant tension between Republicans and Democrats on how we would proceed with the former Warsaw Pact countries. So, I was actually part of that, and we ended up compromising on it.
And so, you're asking me today, are you trying to get into the Trump and Iran issue or something else?
Q: I was just trying to get a sense of like what you as a candidate believe Congress's role is in acting as a check and balance on other federal branches.
Yeah, yeah. Well, okay. I mean, I will tell you that it's equal and separate, but the two tools that the Senate has—actually the primary tool—is confirming nominations. If you don't confirm a nominee, you know, you can really stymie the executive branch. The other power that the Senate has that the House doesn't have is ratifying treaties. That hasn't been as operative over the decades.
So, it's basically withholding the confirmation of nominees as the main lever. The House is traditionally where appropriations start, so they have the power of the purse, but the Senate plays an equal role; it's just that it starts in the House. And so, it's the money and the nominees as the primary levers for the Senate, and in the past, it's been wielded by a senator not allowing a nominee to move forward. And they could do it without disclosing who they were. They would just not allow unanimous consent. Unanimous consent is actually what it says it is—it requires every senator to agree to move something forward. And so, they would put a hold on a nomination, which is a lever. So, that's one of the tools. I'm not sure if your question is—so I do believe, yeah, we should check the power of the president as per the Constitution, and I just think you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis.
Q: What kind of proposals do you think Congress should consider as data centers become more common?
Yeah. So, initially, it was down at a state level, and the congressional role was somewhat limited. But now, I see this as a national security imperative. So, when it comes to national security, that's a federal-level issue. And I just mentioned that I think it should be under the authorization and appropriations.
And the one bill—I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Congress in Washington, D.C.—but the one bill that always goes through every year is the National Defense Authorization Act because it empowers our armed forces. And so, people put all kinds of amendments on that bill because that's the only way they're assured of getting their amendment considered, because most of the other bills just don't go anywhere. The NDAA goes through every time.
So, I would try to have a whole new section of it dealing just with superintelligence. And data centers and superintelligence go hand in hand. That's what supplies all the processing. I mean, the first data centers that we had was AOL came into Northern Virginia in the early 1990s, and it was okay back then. But Loudoun County has become saturated, Fairfax and Loudoun, it's become saturated. So, when it comes to data centers, the physical presence, once again, I would want to stay ahead of China. And to the extent we need these big, ugly buildings, and the noisy things, and the energy hogs that they are, I would put them in remote locations, and I would use federal monies in order to build the transmission lines.
Transmission lines are going to be the highest cost. They have to be above ground because of all the heat. The fiber lines that basically send the data, that can be underground; they don't produce as much heat. Water's really not as big of a deal as what people say it is. It's basically the energy usage and, you know, building the infrastructure in remote locations that's not close to a lot of the grid.
So, yes, I think there should be a federal role because it's a national security issue. If it weren't a national security issue, I wouldn't be so keen on getting involved at the federal level.
(Answers transcribed from an interview recorded on October 22,2026)