Arkansas · individual fact

Arkansas prices and inflation

Compare Arkansas’s price levels, category costs, and changes in its regional price deflator.

BLS does not publish a statewide Arkansas CPI or a complete 50-state CPI cohort. The statewide comparisons here use BEA regional price parities and its implicit regional price deflator. They are explicitly labeled and are not CPI.

All-items price level86.92024 · #50 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level93.62024 · #50 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level58.22024 · #48 of 50 · highest first

Arkansas over time

Explore Arkansas readings, major events and reviewed actions on the same date scale. Arkansas officeholders appear in separate lanes. National event evidence describes national context; it does not measure a Arkansas effect.

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Arkansas change.

Enacted / issuedDid not proceedPending / in progressStatus unclear

Colors show the latest recorded status. Passing one chamber is not enactment. A number groups actions with the same date, body and status.

All-items price level Arkansas · source units
ArkansasPublished U.S. benchmark

Move across the chart to inspect the nearest observation. Click or tap to keep a reading selected, or focus the chart and use the arrow keys. Hover over or focus a marker to explore; click or tap to pin. Press Escape to clear.

All-items price level2024: 86.985.293.4101.6Arkansas, 2014: 89.4Arkansas, 2015: 89Arkansas, 2016: 89.3Arkansas, 2017: 88.6Arkansas, 2018: 87.1Arkansas, 2019: 87.7Arkansas, 2020: 88.2Arkansas, 2021: 88.9Arkansas, 2022: 86.9Arkansas, 2023: 86.8Arkansas, 2024: 86.9201420192024
✦ Major events & context · 27National context · Hurricanes Katrina and Rita disrupt fuel supplies · 2005-08-29Katrina / RitaNational context · Global food and energy price surge · 2008-07-15Food / energy surgeNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Fed cuts rates near zero during the crisis · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Renewed global food and oil price pressures · 2011-04-11Commodity pressuresNational context · U.S. drought damages crops and raises food costs · 2012-08-10U.S. droughtNational context · Oil-price collapse lowers energy inflation · 2014-11-27Oil-price collapseNational context · Fed raises rates after the near-zero period · 2015-12-16Fed rate liftoffNational context · Hurricanes Harvey and Irma disrupt fuel markets · 2017-08-25Harvey / IrmaNational context · U.S.–China tariff escalation · 2018-07-06U.S.–China tariffsNational context · Fed cuts rates amid muted inflation · 2019-07-31Fed cuts rates in 2019National context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Fed emergency rate cut and asset purchases · 2020-03-15Fed emergency easingNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan expands pandemic support · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Reopening demand meets supply and chip shortages · 2021-07-09Reopening / shortagesNational context · Avian influenza disrupts egg supplies · 2022-02-09Bird flu / egg supplyNational context · Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine · 2022-02-24Russia invades UkraineNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increases beginNational context · Banking stress raises credit and inflation uncertainty · 2023-03-22Banking stressNational context · Supply recovery and slower rent growth ease inflation pressures · 2023-08-25Supply / rent easingNational context · Red Sea shipping disruption raises supply risks · 2024-02-22Red Sea shippingNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates in September 2024 · 2024-09-18Fed rate cutNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02U.S. tariff announcementNational context · Federal shutdown interrupts CPI collection · 2025-10-01Shutdown / CPI data gapNational context · Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz energy disruption · 2026-02-28Iran / Hormuz shock● Arkansas Legislature · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.● U.S. Congress · Arkansas delegation · 2◆ Governor · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.■ Arkansas agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-08-012026-06-30

2 of 2 reviewed Arkansas actions match · 2 date markers shown. 27 major events shown separately.

Arkansas · 2024: 86.9 · Rank #50 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year. Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Arkansas with the published U.S. category value shown. Annual observations use December 31; monthly observations use the first of the month. Lines connect consecutive readings and do not supply values between them. Missing observations break the lines.

View observations and export data
Arkansas All-items price level · source units
PeriodArkansasRankU.S. benchmark
202486.9#50 of 50100
202386.8#49 of 50100
202286.9#50 of 50100
202188.9#48 of 50100
202088.2#47 of 50100
201987.7#49 of 50100
201887.1#49 of 50100
201788.6#48 of 50100
201689.3#48 of 50100
201589#48 of 50100
201489.4#48 of 50100
How major events are selected

The timeline combines the corresponding national fact’s reviewed event catalog, labeled National context, with individually reviewed state milestones. State events use primary sources and distinguish signing, effective and filing dates. Each milestone keeps its source-check date, geographical limits and evidence limits. This curated selection is not a complete history.

Date ranges affect events and actions. Action type, status and official-name search affect government records only. Events remain separate from action counts. An event after the latest observation extends context without creating a new reading.

Arkansas · state comparison

How does Arkansas’s cost of living compare?

The U.S. all-items level is 100. Each category uses its own published U.S. benchmark. Compare the same category and year.

Arkansas · 202486.9
Arkansas rank#50among all 50 states
U.S. price level100Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

All-items price level

BEA regional price parity, relative to the overall national price level. The U.S. all-items index equals 100 each year.

Measures prices across places within the same year, rather than annual inflation. For all items, 103 means about 3% above the national level. Category benchmarks can differ from 100; compare Arkansas with the published U.S. category value shown.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Arkansas
All-items price level history in Arkansas84.893.410220142024
2024 · Arkansas: 86.9 · Rank #50 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Arkansas All-items price level history
PeriodArkansasCompare
201489.4
201589
201689.3
201788.6
201887.1
201987.7
202088.2
202188.9
202286.9
202386.8
202486.9

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arkansas stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arkansas has a dark outline.

Lower value · 86.9Higher value · 110.7Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Arkansas · 86.92024 · Rank #50 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Arkansas with every state · 50 ranked
All-items price level · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California110.7—
#2Hawaii110—
#3New Jersey108.8—
#4New York107.9—
#5Washington107—
#6Massachusetts105.8—
#7Maryland105—
#8New Hampshire104.2—
#9Connecticut103.6—
#10Florida103.4—
#11Oregon103.4—
#12Colorado103.1—
#13Alaska102.4—
#14Rhode Island102.3—
#15Virginia101.1—
#16Arizona100.7—
#17Nevada100—
#18Illinois100—
#19Delaware99.8—
#20Utah98.9—
#21Minnesota98.6—
#22Vermont98—
#23Pennsylvania97.6—
#24Texas97.1—
#25Maine97.1—
#26Georgia96.3—
#27Michigan96.2—
#28Idaho95.5—
#29Montana94.6—
#30North Carolina94.3—
#31Wisconsin94.1—
#32South Carolina93.7—
#33Indiana93.3—
#34Ohio92.8—
#35Wyoming92.7—
#36New Mexico92.2—
#37Tennessee91.9—
#38Missouri90.8—
#39Kentucky90.2—
#40Nebraska90.1—
#41Kansas90.1—
#42West Virginia89.5—
#43North Dakota89—
#44Alabama88.8—
#45South Dakota88.6—
#46Louisiana88.2—
#47Oklahoma87.8—
#48Iowa87.8—
#49Mississippi87—
#50Arkansas · your comparison86.9—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Arkansas · state comparison

How much have prices changed?

This is BEA’s implicit regional price deflator, derived from regional price parities and the national PCE price index.

Arkansas · 20242.8%
Arkansas rank#26among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark2.6%Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Annual change in regional price deflator

Year-over-year change in the BEA implicit regional price deflator.

An annual regional inflation measure; different from BLS CPI-U. Changes can reflect regional price parity estimates and revisions as well as national inflation.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Arkansas
Annual change in regional price deflator history in Arkansas-1.3%3.1%7.6%20152024
2024 · Arkansas: 2.8% · Rank #26 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Arkansas Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodArkansasCompare
2015-0.2%
20161.3%
20170.9%
20180.4%
20192.1%
20201.6%
20215%
20224.2%
20233.7%
20242.8%

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arkansas stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arkansas has a dark outline.

Lower value · 0.8%Higher value · 6.7%Striped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Arkansas · 2.8%2024 · Rank #26 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Arkansas with every state · 50 ranked
Annual change in regional price deflator · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Montana6.7%—
#2Idaho6.2%—
#3Utah6%—
#4Nevada4.8%—
#5Michigan4.7%—
#6New Mexico4%—
#7Indiana4%—
#8Wyoming3.9%—
#9Illinois3.9%—
#10Colorado3.8%—
#11Delaware3.7%—
#12Ohio3.6%—
#13Wisconsin3.6%—
#14North Dakota3.5%—
#15Vermont3.5%—
#16South Dakota3.1%—
#17Maryland3%—
#18Minnesota3%—
#19Kentucky2.9%—
#20South Carolina2.9%—
#21Hawaii2.9%—
#22Rhode Island2.8%—
#23Mississippi2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas · your comparison2.8%—
#27New York2.7%—
#28Arizona2.6%—
#29North Carolina2.5%—
#30Texas2.5%—
#31New Jersey2.5%—
#32West Virginia2.5%—
#33Nebraska2.4%—
#34Georgia2.4%—
#35Florida2.4%—
#36Virginia2.4%—
#37Tennessee2.4%—
#38Alabama2.3%—
#39Missouri2.3%—
#40Louisiana2%—
#41Connecticut2%—
#42Alaska1.7%—
#43Maine1.7%—
#44Oklahoma1.6%—
#45Iowa1.5%—
#46New Hampshire1.4%—
#47Washington1.3%—
#48California1.3%—
#49Oregon1.2%—
#50Massachusetts0.8%—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

Arkansas · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

Real personal income accounts for national inflation and regional price differences.

Arkansas · 2024$55,219
Arkansas rank#37among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$59,195Same measure and period when published

#1 is the highest value. Ties share a rank and leave gaps. D.C. and territories are excluded. Rank describes the measured value; it is not an overall score of the state.

Real personal income per person

Regional price-adjusted and inflation-adjusted personal income per resident.

Constant 2017 dollars. This differs from household wages, disposable income, and the national real-hourly-earnings measure.

Hover to inspect. Click or tap to compare that period with every state. Focus the graph and use arrow keys, Home or End to select a period. Press Escape to return to the latest period.

Arkansas
Real personal income per person history in Arkansas$41.78K$51.72K$61.66K20142024
2024 · Arkansas: $55,219 · Rank #37 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Arkansas Real personal income per person history
PeriodArkansasCompare
2014$44,078
2015$45,415
2016$45,881
2017$46,861
2018$48,487
2019$48,246
2020$51,212
2021$55,184
2022$53,291
2023$54,094
2024$55,219

Compare states on the graph

Hover or focus a bar to inspect its value and rank. Use the up and down arrows, Home or End to explore states. Click, tap or press Enter to keep a state selected. Arkansas stays highlighted. Values use the same measure and period.

Explore the map: hover or focus a state to inspect it, then click or tap to select it. Arrow keys move between states alphabetically. Arkansas has a dark outline.

Lower value · $48.47KHigher value · $75.5KStriped: unavailable

Color shows this measure’s value, not an overall state score. Select a state on the map, graph or dropdown to read its value, rank and comparison limits below.

Arkansas · $55,2192024 · Rank #37 of 50, highest firstSelected state

50 states shown · scroll to explore every state. Missing values have no bar and are excluded from ranks. Bars start at zero; #1 means the highest value.

Compare Arkansas with every state · 50 ranked
Real personal income per person · 2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Wyoming$75,501—
#2Connecticut$74,254—
#3Massachusetts$71,629—
#4South Dakota$69,153—
#5Nebraska$65,297—
#6North Dakota$65,271—
#7Colorado$65,223—
#8New Hampshire$64,632—
#9Washington$64,421—
#10New York$64,153—
#11New Jersey$63,142—
#12California$63,028—
#13Minnesota$62,039—
#14Virginia$61,914—
#15Maryland$61,111—
#16Illinois$60,333—
#17Alaska$60,272—
#18Iowa$60,144—
#19Montana$59,203—
#20Kansas$59,172—
#21Vermont$58,893—
#22Oklahoma$58,692—
#23Pennsylvania$58,620—
#24Tennessee$58,582—
#25Wisconsin$58,273—
#26Texas$58,219—
#27Missouri$57,850—
#28Maine$57,480—
#29Florida$57,131—
#30Louisiana$56,789—
#31Nevada$56,503—
#32North Carolina$56,310—
#33Ohio$56,232—
#34Rhode Island$55,878—
#35Indiana$55,562—
#36Oregon$55,451—
#37Arkansas · your comparison$55,219—
#38Delaware$55,185—
#39Utah$55,116—
#40Michigan$53,569—
#41Georgia$52,952—
#42Arizona$52,890—
#43Idaho$52,816—
#44South Carolina$52,463—
#45Kentucky$52,290—
#46Hawaii$52,272—
#47Alabama$52,216—
#48New Mexico$51,121—
#49West Virginia$50,051—
#50Mississippi$48,465—

All 50 states are listed, including states without a comparable observation. Ranks use stored source precision; displayed values may round to the same number.

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living from FactVote’s Arkansas candidate profiles. Compare candidates within each recorded race, with each person’s matching statements kept together. These are candidate and campaign statements, not verified outcomes.

10 statements from 6 candidates

2026 Arkansas Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Colt Shelby

1 statement

Libertarian · Governor · AR

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Protecting farmland and water resources from being crowded out by large industrial development — including data centers — that can drive up utility costs and strain shared water resources in farm country.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Agriculture, rural communities, and food policy

Candidate campaign source

Protecting farmland and water resources from being crowded out by large industrial development — including data centers — that can drive up utility costs and strain shared water resources in farm country.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Colt Shelby — candidate-owned primary source 3 ↗

2026 Arkansas Lieutenant Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements

Michael Kalagias

2 statements

Libertarian · Lieutenant Governor · AR

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Tax Relief I support giving real significant tax relief to Arkansans, not the token $10 per year the GOP has been touting. Arkansas has the second highest state and local sales tax rate in the US. Worse than New York or California. That’s inexcusable. I propose that we lower the state sales tax rate…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: On The Issues

Candidate campaign source

Tax Relief I support giving real significant tax relief to Arkansans, not the token $10 per year the GOP has been touting. Arkansas has the second highest state and local sales tax rate in the US. Worse than New York or California. That’s inexcusable. I propose that we lower the state sales tax rate from 6.5% to a more reasonable 5%. That’s small but real and noticeable savings on utility bills, clothing, school supplies, etc…, nearly everything we purchase. Furthermore I would also propose we remove the local sales tax on food, diapers, and feminine hygiene products; a savings for Arkansas families that would be considerably greater than the minuscule 1/8th of a percent cut on food passed last year. The national standard deduction for income taxes is $15,750. In Arkansas the standard deduction is only $2,470. I propose that we increase the state standard deduction for each filer and dependent to the same $15,750 used for federal tax filers. This would be a substantial savings for working class families in Arkansas, and would require a very minimal change to the tax code.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Michael Kalagias — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 1 more statement from Michael Kalagias
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Arkansas has the second highest state and local sales tax rate in the US. Worse than New York or California. That’s inexcusable. I propose that we lower the state sales tax rate from 6.5% to a more reasonable 5%. That’s small but real and noticeable savings on utility bills, clothing, school supplie…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Economy, taxes, spending, and affordability

Candidate campaign source

Arkansas has the second highest state and local sales tax rate in the US. Worse than New York or California. That’s inexcusable. I propose that we lower the state sales tax rate from 6.5% to a more reasonable 5%. That’s small but real and noticeable savings on utility bills, clothing, school supplies, etc…, nearly everything we purchase. Furthermore I would also propose we remove the local sales tax on food, diapers, and feminine hygiene products; a savings for Arkansas families that would be considerably greater than the minuscule 1/8th of a percent cut on food passed last year.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 16, 2026

Michael Kalagias — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Arkansas U.S. House — District 2 — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 4 statements

Chris Jones

2 statements

Democratic · U.S. House District 2 · AR

Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Increase the availability of safe, affordable housing options for homeowners, renters, and first-time buyers while also bringing energy costs within the home down.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: WHAT I WILL DO:

Candidate campaign source

Increase the availability of safe, affordable housing options for homeowners, renters, and first-time buyers while also bringing energy costs within the home down.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Chris Jones campaign source 4 ↗
View 1 more statement from Chris Jones
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

Making life more affordable for Arkansas families by addressing the cost of living.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: AFFORDABILITY FOR ALL

Candidate campaign source

Making life more affordable for Arkansas families by addressing the cost of living.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 17, 2026

Chris Jones — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

French Hill

2 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · AR

CPI / inflation mention

To fight inflation and reduce everyday expenses, French introduced the Price Stability Act to lower costs on essentials like groceries and gasoline and to force the government to focus on reducing inflation. He also backed the Lower Healthcare Premiums for All Americans Act to reduce insurance costs…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: French on the Issues

Candidate campaign source

To fight inflation and reduce everyday expenses, French introduced the Price Stability Act to lower costs on essentials like groceries and gasoline and to force the government to focus on reducing inflation. He also backed the Lower Healthcare Premiums for All Americans Act to reduce insurance costs and make healthcare more affordable for working families.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

French Hill — campaign source ↗
View 1 more statement from French Hill
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

French has been a strong advocate for economic growth and job creation. He introduced the 21st Century Housing Bill to increase housing affordability by modernizing outdated federal programs, removing regulatory roadblocks, and giving housing developers the flexibility needed to build more homes.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: French on the Issues

Candidate campaign source

French has been a strong advocate for economic growth and job creation. He introduced the 21st Century Housing Bill to increase housing affordability by modernizing outdated federal programs, removing regulatory roadblocks, and giving housing developers the flexibility needed to build more homes.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

French Hill — campaign source ↗
Race groups · Page 1 of 2
How statements are selected

This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published Arkansas candidate profiles. A profile heading or biography alone does not qualify. The Florida geography is fixed; saved state preferences cannot change these results. A mention can concern a community or group rather than Florida’s statewide measure.

Matching is automatic and does not establish a candidate’s stance, the accuracy of a claim, or an effect on the measured result. Results are grouped by recorded race, then by candidate name. Within each candidate, the matching issue mentions appear first. Only candidates with matching retained statements are shown; this is not a complete race roster. Repeated identical text for the same candidate is shown once. Coverage follows the existing state profiles and is not a complete record of all candidates or everything they have said. Review dates are not statement dates.

Arkansas incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

Explore reviewed bills sponsored by current Arkansas legislators and Arkansas’s congressional delegation, plus retained proposals from Arkansas’s governor and agencies. Each record keeps its latest recorded status and official evidence.

2 matching sponsorships or proposals · 2 Arkansas incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Steve Womack

U.S. House of Representatives, Arkansas District 3 · R–AR

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Steve Womack
U.S. Congress · Arkansas delegation · HR 9170

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2027

Jun 5, 2026 · In Congress

Rep. Steve Womack · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The reviewed reported text of HR 9170 proposes $35.453 billion for renewal of expiring Section 8 tenant-based assistance contracts in the 2027 funding cycle, including specified special-purpose vouchers. Funding uses validated prior-year leasing and cost data, inflation adjustments, authorized-unit limits with exceptions, possible proration and specified reserve offsets and shortfall protections. The heading provides availability in October 2026 and October 2027. These are proposed national appropriations, not an Arkansas allocation or evidence of spending.

Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 598. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and tenant-paid utilities. Rental protections, assistance, and housing supply concern components of rental-market conditions; they do not set Arkansas’s median rent. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Arkansas evidence context: Median gross rent. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

TENANT-BASED RENTAL ASSISTANCEFor activities and assistance for the provision of tenant-based rental assistance authorized under the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1437 et seq.) (in this heading the Act), not otherwise provided for, $34,083,000,000, to remain available until expended, which shall be available on October 1, 2026 (in addition to the $4,000,000,000 previously appropriated under this heading that shall be available on October 1, 2026), and $4,000,000,000, to remain available until expended, which shall be available on October 1, 2027: Provided, That of the sums appropriated under this heading—(1)$35,453,000,000 shall be available for renewals of expiring section 8 tenant-based annual contributions contracts (including renewals of enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the Act) and including renewal of other special purpose incremental vouchers: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, from amounts provided under this paragraph and any carryover, the Secretary for the calendar year 2027 funding cycle shall provide renewal funding for each public housing agency based on validated voucher management system (VMS) or successor system leasing and cost data for the prior calendar year and by applying an inflation factor as established by the Secretary, by notice published in the Federal Register, and by making any necessary adjustments for the costs associated with the first-time renewal of vouchers under this paragraph including tenant protection and choice neighborhoods vouchers: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this paragraph may be used to fund a total number of unit months under lease which exceeds a public housing agency's authorized level of units under contract, except for public housing agencies participating in the moving to work (MTW) demonstration, which are instead governed in accordance with the requirements of the MTW demonstration program or their MTW agreements, if any, or as necessary on a temporary basis and within available resources to facilitate the transition of residents assisted by emergency housing vouchers (Public Law 117–2; 135 Stat. 58) to tenant-based rental assistance under the housing assistance payment contract under section 8(o) of the Act: Provided further, That any leasing or associated costs authorized for emergency housing vouchers in the preceding proviso above the public housing agency’s authorized level of units under contract shall not be included in the calculation of the agency’s renewal funding allocation for any subsequent fiscal year: Provided further, That the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay within the amount specified under this paragraph (except as otherwise modified under this paragraph), prorate each public housing agency's allocation otherwise established pursuant to this paragraph: Provided further, That except as provided in the following provisos, the entire amount specified under this paragraph (except as otherwise modified under this paragraph) shall be obligated to the public housing agencies based on the allocation and pro rata method described above, and the Secretary shall notify public housing agencies of their annual budget by the latter of 60 days after enactment of this Act or March 1, 2027: Provided further, That the Secretary may extend the notification period only after the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations are notified at least 10 business days in advance of the deadline: Provided further, That public housing agencies participating in the MTW demonstration shall be funded in accordance with the requirements of the MTW demonstration program or their MTW agreements, if any, and shall be subject to the same pro rata adjustments under the preceding provisos: Provided further, That the Secretary may perform a statutory offset of public housing agencies' calendar year 2027 allocations based on the excess amounts of public housing agencies' net restricted assets accounts, including HUD-held programmatic reserves (in accordance with VMS or successor system data in calendar year 2026 that is verifiable and complete), as determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That public housing agencies participating in the MTW demonstration shall also be subject to the statutory offset: Provided further, That for amounts subject to the single fund budget authority provisions of their MTW agreements, excess amounts shall be offset only to the extent permitted by section 239 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114–113): Provided further, That for public housing agencies in the MTW demonstration subject to single fund budget authority provisions, the Secretary shall provide not less than 60 days to appeal such offsets and shall not offset amounts that have been committed to capital improvement, development, and other repositioning activities that are scheduled to close within 12 months of enactment of this Act, as evidenced in funding applications, project schedules, or other commitments to third parties implementing such activities, to the extent that reserve amounts excluded from offset under such section 239 are insufficient to cover such commitments: Provided further, That the Secretary shall not offset any portion of a public housing agency’s excess amounts if offsetting such portion would result in a public housing agency being put in a shortfall position in calendar year 2027, as estimated by HUD prior to the offset’s implementation, as determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That the Secretary shall use any such offset amounts referred to in the preceding five provisos throughout the calendar year to prevent the termination of rental assistance for families as the result of insufficient funding, as determined by the Secretary, and to avoid or reduce the proration of renewal funding allocations: Provided further, That the Secretary may waive or specify alternative requirements for section 5A and section 8(o) of the Act or any regulation applicable to such statutes related to the administration of waiting lists, local preferences, portability, and public housing agency plan and public hearing requirements to facilitate or expedite the transition of residents assisted by emergency housing vouchers (Public Law 117–2; 135 Stat. 58) to tenant-based rental assistance under the housing assistance payment contract under section 8(o) of the Act: Provided further, That up to $200,000,000 shall be available only:(A)for vouchers that were not in use during the previous 12-month period in order to be available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the Act, or an adjustment for a funding obligation not yet expended in the previous calendar year for a MTW-eligible activity to develop affordable housing for an agency added to the MTW demonstration under the expansion authority provided in section 239 of the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016 (division L of Public Law 114–113); (B)for adjustments for costs associated with HUD–Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD–VASH) vouchers; (C)for public housing agencies that, despite taking reasonable cost savings measures as determined by the Secretary, would otherwise be required to terminate rental assistance for families as a result of insufficient funding; Provided further, That the Secretary shall allocate amounts under the preceding proviso based on need, as determined by the Secretary;
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Tom Cotton

U.S. Senate, Arkansas · R–AR

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Tom Cotton
U.S. Congress · Arkansas delegation · S 4158

A bill to temporarily suspend the clean electricity production credit to support the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Mar 20, 2026 · In Congress

Sen. Tom Cotton · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 4158 would suspend the section 45Y clean-electricity production credit for electricity produced from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2027, and direct amounts equal to the resulting federal revenue increase into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Petroleum Account. The proposal concerns generation incentives and petroleum reserves; it does not order a gasoline-price reduction or prove an actual reserve purchase.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The fact is the EIA Gulf Coast regional regular-gasoline price, including taxes, covering six states including Arkansas. Arkansas policy concerns only one state in that regional measure; this is not an Arkansas statewide average. Exempt off-road fuels and high-ethanol blends are distinct from regular gasoline. Fuel taxes, fees, supply and retail pricing rules concern components of pump prices; they do not determine the regional average. The connection is the transfer of equivalent revenue to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account, a petroleum-supply policy component; the bill does not require a pump-price reduction. This connection does not establish causation or a change in the earlier measured value.

Retained Arkansas evidence context: Gulf Coast regular gasoline price. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

1.Temporary suspension of clean electricity production credit(a)In generalSection 45Y of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:(i)Suspension during fiscal years 2026 and 2027This section shall not apply with respect to any electricity produced during the period beginning on October 1, 2025, and ending on September 30, 2027..(b)Transfer to SPR petroleum accountThe Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit into the SPR Petroleum Account established under section 167(a) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6247(a)) amounts equal to the increase in revenues to the Treasury by reason of the amendment made by subsection (a).
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Arkansas officeholders retained in the reviewed collection qualify. Bills require a recorded primary sponsorship; cosponsors and signing officials are excluded from sponsorship counts. An official introducer recorded as acting by request is labeled “Introduced by request”; that procedural role does not establish personal policy endorsement. Governor and agency records qualify when recorded as proposed. A separately verified governor transmittal can also establish an original proposal whose latest status reflects its later outcome. Signing an enacted law alone does not establish a proposal. A record appearing under several facts is counted once per officeholder. A bill with multiple primary sponsors appears under each recorded sponsor.

Enacted bills, adopted resolutions and unsuccessful measures remain visible as proposal history. Passing one chamber is not enactment. These counts do not measure effectiveness or prove that an action changed a Arkansas statistic. Collection reviewed Oct 5, 2026.