Mike Garcia

Mike Garcia

  • R-CA, 25th District2020 – present
Mike Garcia's photo

Lifetime Score 75%

Key Voting Record

Ineligible / Out of OfficeDid Not Vote
Voted with FreedomWorks principlesAnti-Freedom Vote
Print Scorecard

Key Vote Description

Legislator Score / Vote

2020: 116th Congress N/A

Rep. Garcia has not been scored for 2020 because he did not enter the House until May 19.

  • 9: On Motion to Disagree to the Senate Amendments and Request a Conference on the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, H.R. 6172Yea

    Key Vote 9: On Motion to Disagree to the Senate Amendments and Request a Conference on the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, H.R. 6172

    This is a procedural vote in the House to go to conference with the Senate on the USA FREEDOM Reauthorization Act, H.R. 6172. House Democratic leadership botched the handling of this bill from the beginning, denying an open process to members. Leading up to this particular vote, Democratic leadership and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) continued to play games, negotiating in bad faith with surveillance reformers. A conference committee would lead to reopening H.R. 6172 and watering down reforms, such as the Lee-Leahy amendment, that had passed the Senate. This is why FreedomWorks has taken a rare step of opposing a procedural motion in the House.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 10: On Passage: Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51Nay

    Key Vote 10: On Passage: Washington, D.C. Admission Act, H.R. 51

    The Washington, D.C. Admission Act would admit Washington, D.C. into the Union, making it the 51st state. It’s very likely that this bill is unconstitutional. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution states: “The Congress shall have Power…[t]o exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.” The Washington, D.C. Admission Act would reduce the size of the federal district to a small strip of land that includes the U.S. Capitol Building, the White House, and the National Mall. The bill would also give Washington, D.C. one representative in the U.S. House of Representatives and two senators in the U.S. Senate, increasing the number of voting members of Congress to 538 (436 in the House and 102 in the Senate). Simply put, the Constitution must be amended to make Washington, D.C. a state. As Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute once noted, this has been the conclusion of every presidential administration since John F. Kennedy, with the exception of the Obama administration. Even in the Obama administration, the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) came to the same conclusion that previous administrations had reached. Then-Attorney General Eric Holder didn’t like the conclusion reached by OLC, so he sought and received a conclusion that he liked from the Office of the Solicitor General. Of course, the Washington, D.C. Admission Act is a political ploy. The admission of Washington, D.C. into the Union would bring one representative in House of Representatives and two senators in the Senate. The District of Columbia, which was given three electoral votes through the Twenty-Third Amendment, is overwhelmingly Democratic and would ensure more political power for Democrats in Congress, particularly in the Senate.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 11: On Passage: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act, H.R. 1425Nay

    Key Vote 11: On Passage: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act, H.R. 1425

    The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Enhancement Act, H.R. 1425, doubles down on ObamaCare by attempting to force more people into both the exchanges and Medicaid while also adding on socialist-style price controls on prescription drugs. Although Democrats have made clear that Medicare for All remains their policy end-goal, this latest proposal seems to show that they are content in the meantime to continue herding patients into the existing silos that ObamaCare narrowed health care payments into.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • 12: On Passage: Moving Forward Act, H.R. 2Nay

    Key Vote 12: On Passage: Moving Forward Act, H.R. 2

    he Moving Forward Act -- dubbed by Republicans as Pelosi’s “My Way or the Highway” Act -- is an infrastructure bill in name only. At over 2,309 pages, with 90,803 sections, H.R. 2 carries a $1.5 trillion price tag, up a full trillion dollars from the last version of the bill, the INVEST in America Act. Topline funding for surface and rail transportation is set at 62 percent above the current FAST Act levels for the next five years. The proposal also includes an excessive $22 billion “special funding pot” for FY 2021 that would be available only for costs associated with COVID-19 recovery. Funding levels for general infrastructure provide $500 billion for roads, bridges, and other transit, $130 billion for schools, $100 billion for housing, $100 billion for rural broadband, $70 billion for renewable energy, $65.6 billion for fresh-water resources, and $22.9 billion for aviation. In exchange for this abundance of appropriation, Speaker Pelosi has included language in nearly every section that creates new “green” mandates in an effort to help Democrats achieve the goals of the Green New Deal. For example -- in addition to the existing emissions standards of the Environmental Protection Agency -- H.R. 2 would require the Department of Transportation to spend $200 billion over the next five years to establish emissions performance measures and restrictions on public roads. Unfortunately, this is only one example amongst thousands of the new top-down, “green” mandates included in H.R. 2. Instead of taking this opportunity to seek bipartisan consensus to smartly invest in rebuilding our roads and ports, Speaker Pelosi is holding infrastructure funding hostage in exchange for a progressive agenda.

    "Nay" votes scored.
  • No votes for this year match the provided filters.
  • View scorecard »