Arkansas · individual fact

Arkansas budget, debt, and interest

Arkansas state-government finances, comparable debt and interest figures, and the enacted budget.

The national companion measures federal finances. Here the unit is Arkansas state government. Federal debt is not allocated to Arkansas; a state budget is not the federal budget.

State debt outstanding$8.05BFY2024 · #32 of 50 · highest first
Interest expenditure$245.6MFY2024 · #35 of 50 · highest first
Total state tax collections$12.67BFY2024 · #35 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.

No comparable time series is retained for this topic. The chart shows events and reviewed actions; current state comparisons appear below.

Arkansas government actions Arkansas · source units

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.

Events and reviewed actionsNo saved observations in this range.Sep 1, 2005Jun 30, 2026
✦ Major events & context · 50National context · Hurricane Katrina emergency appropriations · 2005-09-08Katrina relief fundingNational context · Medicare prescription drug benefit begins · 2006-01-01Medicare Part D beginsNational context · Iraq and Afghanistan war funding assessment · 2007-07-31War funding assessmentNational context · Economic Stimulus Act tax rebates · 2008-02-132008 tax rebatesNational context · Treasury support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac · 2008-09-07Fannie / Freddie supportNational context · Great Financial Crisis and Great Recession · 2008-09-15Great Financial CrisisNational context · Emergency stabilization law creates TARP · 2008-10-03TARP stabilizationNational context · Federal Reserve cuts rates close to zero · 2008-12-16Fed near-zero ratesNational context · American Recovery and Reinvestment Act · 2009-02-17Recovery ActNational context · Affordable Care Act changes health financing · 2010-03-23Health-care financing lawNational context · Tax extensions and payroll-tax relief · 2010-12-172010 tax / benefit dealNational context · Budget Control Act and debt-limit agreement · 2011-08-022011 budget agreementNational context · S&P lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2011-08-05S&P rating downgradeNational context · Fiscal-cliff tax agreement · 2013-01-02Fiscal-cliff agreementNational context · Automatic federal spending cuts begin · 2013-03-01Federal spending cutsNational context · Shutdown ends and debt limit is suspended · 2013-10-172013 funding / debt dealNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 · 2013-12-262013 budget caps dealNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 · 2015-11-022015 budget / debt dealNational context · Fed begins lifting rates after the crisis · 2015-12-16Fed rate normalizationNational context · 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act · 2017-12-222017 tax lawNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 · 2018-02-092018 budget / debt dealNational context · 2018–19 partial government shutdown · 2018-12-222018–19 funding lapseNational context · Bipartisan Budget Act of 2019 · 2019-08-022019 budget / debt dealNational context · COVID-19 pandemic · 2020-03-11COVID-19 pandemicNational context · Emergency rate cuts and Treasury purchases · 2020-03-15Fed pandemic responseNational context · CARES Act pandemic relief · 2020-03-27CARES Act reliefNational context · Further pandemic relief and annual funding · 2020-12-27December pandemic reliefNational context · American Rescue Plan · 2021-03-11American Rescue PlanNational context · Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act · 2021-11-15Infrastructure fundingNational context · Congress raises the debt limit after two impasses · 2021-12-162021 debt-limit increaseNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2022 rate increases · 2022-03-16Fed rate increasesNational context · Semiconductor funding and investment credits · 2022-08-09CHIPS fundingNational context · PACT Act expands veterans’ benefits · 2022-08-10Veterans’ benefits expansionNational context · Inflation Reduction Act changes taxes and spending · 2022-08-16Energy / health / tax lawNational context · Student-loan cancellation cost recorded · 2022-09-30Loan-cost accountingNational context · Inflation and rates raise interest costs above forecasts · 2023-01-09Inflation / interest costsNational context · Fed reports suspension of Treasury payments · 2023-01-13Fed payments suspendedNational context · Disaster tax deadlines move into the next fiscal year · 2023-02-24Disaster tax deferralsNational context · Fiscal Responsibility Act · 2023-06-032023 debt-limit agreementNational context · Fitch lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2023-08-01Fitch rating downgradeNational context · Student-loan cost reversal lowers recorded outlays · 2023-08-31Loan-cost reversalNational context · National security supplemental funding · 2024-04-24Security supplementalNational context · Federal Reserve begins 2024 rate cuts · 2024-09-182024 Fed rate cutsNational context · Social Security Fairness Act becomes law · 2025-01-05Social Security benefitsNational context · Treasury begins extraordinary measures · 2025-01-21Debt-limit measuresNational context · Broad U.S. tariff announcement · 2025-04-02Tariffs / customs receiptsNational context · Moody’s lowers the U.S. sovereign credit rating · 2025-05-16Moody’s rating downgradeNational context · 2025 tax and spending reconciliation law · 2025-07-042025 tax / spending lawNational context · 2025 federal government shutdown · 2025-10-012025 funding lapseNational context · Supreme Court rejects IEEPA tariff authority · 2026-02-20Tariff authority ruling● 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.2005-09-012026-06-30

2 of 2 reviewed Arkansas actions match · 2 date markers shown. 50 major events shown separately.

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

State debt and interest

Compare state-government balances and interest expenditure from the same Census fiscal-year survey.

Arkansas · FY2024$8.05B
Arkansas rank#32among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.1TSame 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.

State debt outstanding

Long-term debt outstanding plus short-term debt outstanding at fiscal year end.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. Excludes local-government debt. Dollar ranks describe scale, not credit quality.

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 · $728.59MHigher value · $166.39BStriped: 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 · $8.05BFY2024 · Rank #32 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
State debt outstanding · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$166.39B—
#2New York$120.59B—
#3Texas$70.05B—
#4Massachusetts$65.87B—
#5New Jersey$57.23B—
#6Pennsylvania$48.67B—
#7Illinois$43.38B—
#8Virginia$33.73B—
#9Connecticut$33.27B—
#10Ohio$32.29B—
#11Washington$30.62B—
#12Maryland$25.9B—
#13Michigan$25.02B—
#14Colorado$23.57B—
#15Wisconsin$22.79B—
#16Florida$20.14B—
#17Minnesota$17.03B—
#18Oregon$16.91B—
#19Louisiana$16.09B—
#20South Carolina$15.36B—
#21West Virginia$15.08B—
#22Georgia$14.05B—
#23North Carolina$13.13B—
#24Hawaii$11.72B—
#25Rhode Island$11.41B—
#26Alabama$10.99B—
#27Oklahoma$10.15B—
#28Kentucky$10.08B—
#29Tennessee$9.03B—
#30Indiana$8.52B—
#31Iowa$8.06B—
#32Arkansas · your comparison$8.05B—
#33Mississippi$7.72B—
#34New Hampshire$7.58B—
#35Kansas$7.16B—
#36New Mexico$7.12B—
#37Missouri$6.99B—
#38Arizona$6.88B—
#39Alaska$5.72B—
#40Utah$5.55B—
#41Maine$5.3B—
#42North Dakota$4.89B—
#43South Dakota$4.67B—
#44Delaware$3.69B—
#45Nebraska$3.39B—
#46Nevada$2.89B—
#47Montana$2.76B—
#48Vermont$2.67B—
#49Wyoming$1.26B—
#50Idaho$728.59M—

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

Where state revenue comes from

All measures use Census state-government records for FY2024. Categories describe collections; they do not rank statutory tax rates.

Arkansas · FY2024$5.07B
Arkansas rank#27among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$465.4BSame 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.

General sales-tax collections

Census category T09.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.

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 · $0Higher value · $54.35BStriped: 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 · $5.07BFY2024 · Rank #27 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
General sales-tax collections · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1Texas$54.35B—
#2California$53.33B—
#3Florida$40.09B—
#4Washington$22.81B—
#5New York$19.99B—
#6Ohio$16.33B—
#7Illinois$16.05B—
#8Pennsylvania$15.6B—
#9New Jersey$14.31B—
#10Tennessee$14.08B—
#11Arizona$13.16B—
#12Michigan$12.7B—
#13North Carolina$12.16B—
#14Indiana$10.96B—
#15Massachusetts$9.4B—
#16Georgia$9.01B—
#17Minnesota$8.49B—
#18Nevada$8.4B—
#19Wisconsin$7.59B—
#20Virginia$7.4B—
#21Maryland$6.85B—
#22South Carolina$6.44B—
#23Connecticut$6.23B—
#24Kentucky$5.8B—
#25Missouri$5.26B—
#26Mississippi$5.07B—
#27Arkansas · your comparison$5.07B—
#28Louisiana$4.87B—
#29Hawaii$4.79B—
#30Colorado$4.67B—
#31Iowa$4.64B—
#32Utah$4.63B—
#33Alabama$4.59B—
#34Kansas$4.33B—
#35New Mexico$4.33B—
#36Oklahoma$3.81B—
#37Idaho$3.09B—
#38Nebraska$2.97B—
#39Maine$2.35B—
#40West Virginia$1.82B—
#41South Dakota$1.68B—
#42Rhode Island$1.63B—
#43Oregon$1.34B—
#44North Dakota$1.32B—
#45Wyoming$1.01B—
#46Vermont$597.33M—
#47Alaska$0—
#47Delaware$0—
#47Montana$0—
#47New Hampshire$0—

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

Where state operating spending goes

Census categories allow consistent comparisons. These selected categories are not a breakdown of the current Arkansas appropriations act.

Arkansas · FY2024$8.67B
Arkansas rank#31among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$1.02TSame 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.

Public welfare current operations

Current operations for public welfare institutions and other public welfare, excluding capital and transfers.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states.

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 · $1.09BHigher value · $156.71BStriped: 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 · $8.67BFY2024 · Rank #31 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
Public welfare current operations · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$156.71B—
#2New York$97.35B—
#3Texas$57.32B—
#4Illinois$41.13B—
#5Florida$40.11B—
#6Ohio$39.77B—
#7Pennsylvania$39.34B—
#8Massachusetts$34.12B—
#9North Carolina$30.64B—
#10New Jersey$28.06B—
#11Arizona$26.02B—
#12Michigan$24.37B—
#13Virginia$23.68B—
#14Minnesota$23.37B—
#15Indiana$22.93B—
#16Maryland$21.61B—
#17Kentucky$20.54B—
#18Oregon$20.47B—
#19Washington$19.6B—
#20Georgia$18.99B—
#21Louisiana$18.69B—
#22Tennessee$16.42B—
#23Wisconsin$16.26B—
#24Missouri$15.65B—
#25Oklahoma$14.57B—
#26Colorado$13.6B—
#27South Carolina$12.84B—
#28New Mexico$10.72B—
#29Iowa$10.26B—
#30Alabama$9.73B—
#31Arkansas · your comparison$8.67B—
#32Mississippi$8.08B—
#33Utah$6.91B—
#34Kansas$6.84B—
#35Nevada$6.62B—
#36West Virginia$6.24B—
#37Maine$5.7B—
#38Nebraska$4.97B—
#39Connecticut$4.88B—
#40Rhode Island$4.54B—
#41Hawaii$4.14B—
#42Delaware$3.97B—
#43Idaho$3.73B—
#44Alaska$3.27B—
#45Montana$2.89B—
#46New Hampshire$2.72B—
#47Vermont$2.69B—
#48North Dakota$2.09B—
#49South Dakota$1.95B—
#50Wyoming$1.09B—

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

State operating costs and the enacted budget

The enacted plan, spending categories and audited activity use different periods and accounting scopes; they are kept separate.

Arkansas · FY2024$16.28B
Arkansas rank#36among all 50 states
U.S. benchmark$2.04TSame 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.

Current operation expenditure

Sum of Census current-operation expenditure categories, excluding capital outlay, interest, and assistance/subsidy expenditure.

State governments only, Census level 2; amounts converted from thousands to dollars. Fiscal-year ending dates differ among states. This FY2024 comparison differs in scope and period from Arkansas’s FY2027 appropriations and Fiscal year ended June 30, 2024 — latest ACFR published by DFA audit shown below.

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 · $4.01BHigher value · $287.03BStriped: 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 · $16.28BFY2024 · Rank #36 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
Current operation expenditure · FY2024 · highest value ranked #1
RankStateValueComparison notes
#1California$287.03B—
#2New York$161.37B—
#3Texas$136.18B—
#4Florida$86.61B—
#5Pennsylvania$77.15B—
#6Illinois$75.67B—
#7Ohio$66.77B—
#8New Jersey$64.53B—
#9Massachusetts$61.38B—
#10North Carolina$59.01B—
#11Michigan$57.27B—
#12Virginia$53.45B—
#13Washington$49.82B—
#14Georgia$45.19B—
#15Maryland$45.06B—
#16Oregon$41.41B—
#17Arizona$38.71B—
#18Minnesota$38.1B—
#19Indiana$37.4B—
#20Kentucky$36.94B—
#21Wisconsin$34.5B—
#22Missouri$34.43B—
#23South Carolina$32.85B—
#24Colorado$32.73B—
#25Louisiana$31.67B—
#26Tennessee$31.12B—
#27Alabama$26.99B—
#28Oklahoma$24.28B—
#29Utah$22.7B—
#30New Mexico$21.94B—
#31Connecticut$21.22B—
#32Iowa$19.89B—
#33Kansas$18.39B—
#34Hawaii$16.62B—
#35Mississippi$16.46B—
#36Arkansas · your comparison$16.28B—
#37West Virginia$13.19B—
#38Nevada$12.43B—
#39Nebraska$10.41B—
#40Maine$10.12B—
#41Delaware$9.24B—
#42Rhode Island$8.93B—
#43Alaska$8.4B—
#44Idaho$8.21B—
#45New Hampshire$7.12B—
#46Montana$6.44B—
#47Vermont$6.28B—
#48North Dakota$5.63B—
#49South Dakota$4.55B—
#50Wyoming$4.01B—

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

FY2027 · Enacted as Act 144 of 2026

Enacted appropriations

$6.7B

The Revenue Stabilization Law's Allocation A and Allocation B distribution of net available general revenue to State agencies, institutions of higher education, general government, and local support. It is not an all-funds budget and excludes off-the-top deductions, refunds and claims, debt service, federal funds, cash funds, and other non-General-Revenue funding.

Where State tax revenue comes from

FY2024 ACFR actual

Shares of the $10.297 billion in taxes reported as general revenue for Arkansas's primary government. Locally retained property taxes are outside this State-government denominator.

Consumer sales and use taxes
$4.6B · 44.9%
Personal and corporate income taxes
$3.5B · 34.2%
Other taxes
$1.6B · 16%
Gas and motor-carrier taxes
$509.3M · 4.9%

FY2027 general-revenue allocations

FY2027 enacted

Exact Allocation A and B totals from the Revenue Stabilization Law tables. FactVote combines the Public School Fund, General Education Fund, and institutions of higher education into one education category; the four displayed categories reconcile exactly to the enacted total.

Education
$3.3B · 49.9%
Human services
$1.9B · 27.7%
State general government
$891.2M · 13.3%
Other Revenue Stabilization funds
$611.4M · 9.1%

What candidates are saying

Explore statements about budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt 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.

11 statements from 5 candidates

2026 Arkansas Governor — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 1 statement

Colt Shelby

1 statement

Libertarian · Governor · AR

Budgets, spending & debt

Colt has managed hundreds of millions in contracts with zero waste. He will bring that same discipline to the state budget — your tax dollars deserve accountability.

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

Colt has managed hundreds of millions in contracts with zero waste. He will bring that same discipline to the state budget — your tax dollars deserve accountability.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Colt Shelby — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Arkansas U.S. House — District 1 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements

Rick Crawford

2 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 1 · AR

Budgets, spending & debt

However, we have a critical mission in Washington and that is dealing with our ongoing debt crisis. I have made it my top priority to address our debt crisis by enacting permanent spending controls so we can finally put the shovel down and start to get out the hole we have dug for ourselves. I fear …

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

However, we have a critical mission in Washington and that is dealing with our ongoing debt crisis. I have made it my top priority to address our debt crisis by enacting permanent spending controls so we can finally put the shovel down and start to get out the hole we have dug for ourselves. I fear that if we fail to adequately address our debt crisis the greatest threat to our nation, as described by the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullin as our national debt, we will succumb to the immense weight of interest expenses on our debt that would soon overtake the total amount of money budgeted to run the Pentagon.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Rick Crawford — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗
View 1 more statement from Rick Crawford
Budgets, spending & debt

Supports permanent federal spending controls to address the national debt.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Fiscal Policy

Candidate campaign source

Supports permanent federal spending controls to address the national debt.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Rick Crawford — candidate-owned primary source 1 ↗

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

1 candidate with matching statements · 2 statements

French Hill

2 statements

Republican · U.S. House District 2 · AR

Budgets, spending & debt

French has sponsored two balanced budget amendments to the U.S. Constitution, believing that the federal government needs to live within its means like Arkansas families do.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: French on the Issues

Candidate campaign source

French has sponsored two balanced budget amendments to the U.S. Constitution, believing that the federal government needs to live within its means like Arkansas families do.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 19, 2026

French Hill — campaign source ↗
View 1 more statement from French Hill
Budgets, spending & debt

French champions the Golden Fleece Award, which he gives to highlight current federal spending waste.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: French on the Issues

Candidate campaign source

French champions the Golden Fleece Award, which he gives to highlight current federal spending waste.

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 budgets, government spending, deficits and public debt 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 3034

Reliable Power Act

Apr 15, 2026 · In Congress

Sen. Tom Cotton · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 3034 would require annual long-term bulk-power reliability assessments covering the generation mix, transmission and demand. After a notice of generation inadequacy, specified federal regulations affecting generation would require FERC review and a determination about reliability before finalization. This concerns generation oversight, not a gas-generation quota or a verified change in Arkansas output. The covered regulations are those under development or consideration when the agency receives notice. Finalization requires both a written agency response and FERC’s determination that a significant negative reliability impact is unlikely.

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy. Hearings held. With printed Hearing: S.Hrg. 119-366. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Natural-gas share is the portion of electricity generated at Arkansas facilities supplied by natural gas. Natural-gas output is the numerator and total in-state generation is the denominator. Policies concerning natural-gas or competing generation technologies can concern this mix; in-state generation differs from electricity consumed in the state. Procurement targets and authorizations are distinct from operating plants or measured output. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

Retained Arkansas evidence context: Natural-gas share of in-state electricity generation. This record’s connection to the topic does not establish an effect on the measured result.

2. Commission review and comment for covered agency actions Section 215 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 824o) is amended— (1) in subsection (g)— (A) by striking The ERO and inserting the following: (1) In general The ERO ; and (B) by adding at the end the following: (2) Annual long-term assessment The assessments under paragraph (1) shall include an annual long-term assessment, which shall include— (A) an analysis of the ability of the bulk-power system to supply sufficient electric energy to maintain an adequate level of reliability, taking into account— (i) generation resource mix; (ii) transmission development; and (iii) electric energy demand trends; (B) an analysis of— (i) the risk of future electric energy supply shortfalls under normal and extreme weather conditions; and (ii) the risk of any such shortfalls within each region of the bulk-power system; and (C) a determination of whether additional generation resources are necessary to supply sufficient electric energy to maintain an adequate level of reliability during the assessment period. (3) Notice of generation inadequacy In conducting a long-term assessment under paragraph (2), if the ERO determines that the bulk-power system is at risk of not having adequate generation resources to supply sufficient electric energy to maintain an adequate level of reliability, the ERO shall publicly notify the Commission that the bulk-power system is in a state of generation inadequacy. (4) Data collection To conduct a long-term assessment under paragraph (2), the ERO may collect information and data from users, owners, and operators of the bulk-power system. ; (2) by redesignating subsections (h) through (k) as subsections (i) through (l), respectively; and (3) by inserting after subsection (g) the following: (h) Commission review and comment for covered agency actions (1) Definitions In this subsection: (A) Covered agency action The term covered agency action means a regulation that— (i) relates to, or otherwise directly affects, any generation resource in the bulk-power system; and (ii) on the date on which the applicable Federal agency receives notice from the Commission under paragraph (2)— (I) is under development to be proposed; or (II) is otherwise under consideration in a rulemaking proceeding. (B) Federal agency The term Federal agency means an Executive department (as defined in section 101 of title 5, United States Code) or any other Executive agency the head of which holds a Cabinet-level position. (2) Notice to Federal agencies If the ERO notifies the Commission under subsection (g)(3) that the bulk-power system is in a state of generation inadequacy, the Commission shall promptly notify the Department of Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and any other Federal agency the Commission determines appropriate of that state of generation inadequacy. (3) Submission of covered agency actions to the Commission (A) In general Not later than the applicable date described in subparagraph (B), the head of each Federal agency that receives a notification under paragraph (2) shall submit to the Commission for review and comment any covered agency action of the Federal agency. (B) Date described The date referred to in subparagraph (A) is— (i) the first date on which the applicable covered agency action is provided to the Office of Management and Budget or any other Federal agency for review and comment; (ii) if the applicable covered agency action is not provided to the Office of Management and Budget or any other Federal agency for review and comment, the date that is 90 days before the date on which the covered agency action is published in the Federal Register or otherwise made available for public inspection or comment; or (iii) if, as of the date on which the Federal agency receives the applicable notification under paragraph (2), the covered agency action has already been provided to the Office of Management and Budget or any other Federal agency for review and comment, or has already been published in the Federal Register or otherwise made available for public inspection or comment, the date that is 60 days after the date on which the Federal agency received the notification. (4) Commission comments The Commission, in consultation with the ERO and transmission organizations, shall, by order, provide to the Federal agency head that submitted to the Commission a covered agency action under paragraph (3)— (A) comments on the covered agency action, which may include an assessment of the effect of the covered agency action on rates, terms, and conditions for services pursuant to the authority of the Commission under sections 201 and 206; and (B) if applicable, recommendations for modifications to the covered agency action to prevent a significant negative impact on the ability of the bulk-power system to supply sufficient electric energy to maintain an adequate level of reliability. (5) Agency response The head of a Federal agency may not finalize a covered agency action that is submitted to the Commission under paragraph (3) until— (A) the agency head responds in writing to the Commission with an explanation of how the agency head modified, or why the agency head determined not to modify, the covered agency action in response to any comments and recommendations provided by the Commission under paragraph (4); and (B) the Commission determines that the covered agency action is not likely to have a significant negative impact on the ability of the bulk-power system to supply sufficient electric energy to maintain an adequate level of reliability. (6) Public availability of comments and responses A Federal agency head shall include any comments, recommendations, and responses relating to the covered agency action under paragraphs (4) and (5) in— (A) any submission of the covered agency action to the Federal Register for publication; and (B) any other place in which the covered agency action is otherwise made available for public inspection or comment. .
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.