They didn’t let Senator Baldwin and me enter because they knew we’d win.
Congress Member Profile|U.S. Senator|Republican|Mississippi
Cindy Hyde-Smith
Source: Wikipedia • View full (CC BY-SA)
SoupScoreanalysis-first civic rating · view full breakdown
Loading…
Voting Record — 789
Yes74%
No24%
Present0%
Not Voting2%
Party align99%
Cross-party1%
SoupScore
District Map
Senate District (Statewide)
U.S. Census Bureau boundary data.
Social & Web
External Resources
Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. SenatorRepublicanMississippi
SoupScore
Cindy's ATmosphere Activity
20 recent posts · 38 sponsored · 184 cosponsored
Recent ATmosphere posts, sponsorships, and cosponsorships.
Can’t have a Minnesota potluck without the essentials!
There’s bill in the Senate called the Health Care Affordability Act that would make these tax credits permanent.
I’m a cosponsor, as are most Democrats, but the real question is if Republicans will get on board – or if they’ll let people’s health care costs shoot up.
Congress will have to act. But history shows us that Republicans won’t lift a finger when it comes to the ACA. This time could be no different.
Millions would lose coverage.
Millions would see their rates go up.
People will forego care because they just can’t afford it.
I want to talk about health care. I can’t lie – I’m worried.
No Republican has ever voted to improve the foundations of the Affordable Care Act. Over the last few years, Democrats alone made updates to expand who is eligible AND cut out-of-pocket costs.
Both expire in 2025.
I will always start from the place that I believe people should have the decision-making power about their own health care and their reproductive health.
That decision making power should rest with the individual, not with the government.
When will Republicans attempt to cut Title X funding (which is the only federal program to provide comprehensive family planning services, like birth control), access to IVF and even things like Plan B?
How will Republicans use an old zombie law (Comstock Act) to take away abortion access nationally without a vote in Congress?
Two things I’m going to be watching closely when it comes to preserving access to reproductive care under a Trump Admin:
1) The Comstock Act (Medication Abortion)
2) Title X Funding (Family Planning)
Good news: We’re connecting 38 businesses and 147 farms in Pine County, Minnesota to high-speed broadband.
That’s over 1,000 people who will finally access high-speed internet, something often mistaken as a luxury when in reality – it’s a necessity.
To the educators in Minnesota and nationwide, thank you for all that you do! 🧑🏫
America wouldn’t work without our teachers. I think everyone can remember moments as a kid where a teacher had a big impact on us.
American Education Week celebrates and honors those who work every day to make a difference for our students.
Happy Sunday. Skol @vikings.bsky.social!
This is an example of what community investment should look like. Where constituents come to us with their unique needs and ideas, and we use our power in Washington to make them a reality.
I was proud to be a part of the work to get this done.
This facility is a federally qualified health center — meaning they will never turn a patient away or deny them care because they can’t pay.
Because everyone deserves the chance live a happy, healthy life.
Today we broke ground for a new Southside Community Health Services clinic.
This brand new facility with state-of-the-art equipment will offer medical care, mental health care, dental and vision services to 18,000 patients in South Minneapolis.
Tough week. The donut helped.
This is ridiculous. Ghost networks are deceptive and just make it harder to access mental health care.
Insurance companies should be held accountable for putting up these barriers.
We need to pass my bill with @wyden.senate.gov and go after insurers that don’t keep their directories up to date.
Have you ever called a mental health provider listed in your insurer's directory, but couldn't make an appointment because the information was wrong?
You're not alone. Regulators know that insurance directories are full of errors. Here's what I found. 🧵 www.propublica.org/article/ghos...
We could all use some good news.
The Rural Energy for America Program I championed has funded 250+ clean energy projects for rural communities and farmers across Minnesota this year.
Saves money — and helps rural communities across the country.
SoupScore Breakdown
Loading analysis metrics…
Voting History789 total votesExpandCollapse
Voting History
789 total votes
Recent roll calls with party-majority context so it is easier to scan how this member tends to vote.
| Date | Bill | Question | Position | Party Maj | Align? | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (54-43) |
| 2025-02-24 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (66-28) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Accept House changes | YES | YES | ✓ | Concurrent Resolution Agreed to (52-48) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Van Hollen Amdt. No. 233) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (24-76) |
| 2025-02-21 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-21 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Reed Amdt. No. 172) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Baldwin Amdt. No. 276) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Wyden Amdt. No. 1156) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (49-51) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 776) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (49-51, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | YES | YES | ✓ | Amendment Agreed to (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Hickenlooper Amdt. No. 925) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (47-53) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Warner Amdt. No. 130) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-53, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Vote on amendment | NO | NO | ✓ | Amendment Rejected (48-52) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Klobuchar Amdt. No. 494) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (48-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Motion (Motion to Waive All Applicable Budgetary Discipline Re: Schumer Amdt. No. 454) | NO | NO | ✓ | Motion Rejected (47-52, 3/5 majority required) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-49) |
| 2025-02-20 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-47) |
| 2025-02-19 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-46) |
| 2025-02-18 | S. Con. Res. 7 (119th) | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (50-47) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (51-45) |
| 2025-02-18 | — | Begin consideration | NOT_VOTING | YES | — | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (48-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (51-43) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-45) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (72-28) |
| 2025-02-13 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (53-47) |
| 2025-02-12 | — | Confirm nominee | YES | YES | ✓ | Nomination Confirmed (52-48) |
| 2025-02-10 | — | End debate | YES | YES | ✓ | Cloture Motion Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-45) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (53-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (51-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-47) |
| 2025-02-06 | — | Begin consideration | YES | YES | ✓ | Motion to Proceed Agreed to (52-46) |
Alignment stats consider only votes where a clear yes/no majority existed for the legislator's party. Cross-party marks divergence where the vote matched the opposite party majority. ↔ indicates cross-party divergence.