Mississippi · individual fact

Mississippi prices and inflation

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

BLS does not publish a statewide Mississippi 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 level872024 · #49 of 50 · highest first
Goods price level96.22024 · #32 of 50 · highest first
Housing-rent price level56.52024 · #49 of 50 · highest first

Mississippi over time

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

Major events & context · A curated selection, including uncertain effects. Milestone dates do not establish that an event caused a Mississippi 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 Mississippi · source units
MississippiPublished 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: 8783.992.8101.7Mississippi, 2014: 89Mississippi, 2015: 88.3Mississippi, 2016: 88.5Mississippi, 2017: 87.7Mississippi, 2018: 86.2Mississippi, 2019: 86.5Mississippi, 2020: 85.6Mississippi, 2021: 86.2Mississippi, 2022: 87.3Mississippi, 2023: 86.8Mississippi, 2024: 87201420192024
✦ 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● Mississippi Legislature · 1● U.S. Congress · Mississippi delegation · 2◆ Governor · 1■ Mississippi agencies · 0No reviewed actions match these filters.2005-08-012026-03-31

4 of 4 reviewed Mississippi actions match · 4 date markers shown. 27 major events shown separately.

Mississippi · 2024: 87 · Rank #49 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 Mississippi 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
Mississippi All-items price level · source units
PeriodMississippiRankU.S. benchmark
202487#49 of 50100
202386.8#50 of 50100
202287.3#49 of 50100
202186.2#50 of 50100
202085.6#50 of 50100
201986.5#50 of 50100
201886.2#50 of 50100
201787.7#49 of 50100
201688.5#49 of 50100
201588.3#49 of 50100
201489#50 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.

Mississippi · state comparison

How does Mississippi’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.

Mississippi · 202487
Mississippi rank#49among 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 Mississippi 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.

Mississippi
All-items price level history in Mississippi83.492.8102.220142024
2024 · Mississippi: 87 · Rank #49 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 100 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Mississippi All-items price level history
PeriodMississippiCompare
201489
201588.3
201688.5
201787.7
201886.2
201986.5
202085.6
202186.2
202287.3
202386.8
202487

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. Mississippi 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. Mississippi 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.

Mississippi · 872024 · Rank #49 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 Mississippi 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—
#49Mississippi · your comparison87—
#50Arkansas86.9—

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

Mississippi · 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.

Mississippi · 20242.8%
Mississippi rank#23among 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.

Mississippi
Annual change in regional price deflator history in Mississippi-1.9%3.7%9.2%20152024
2024 · Mississippi: 2.8% · Rank #23 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: 2.6% · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Mississippi Annual change in regional price deflator history
PeriodMississippiCompare
2015-0.6%
20161.3%
20170.9%
20180.2%
20191.9%
20200%
20214.9%
20227.9%
20233.2%
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. Mississippi 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. Mississippi 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.

Mississippi · 2.8%2024 · Rank #23 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 Mississippi 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%—
#23Mississippi · your comparison2.8%—
#24Kansas2.8%—
#25Pennsylvania2.8%—
#26Arkansas2.8%—
#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.

Mississippi · state comparison

Are incomes keeping up with prices?

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

Mississippi · 2024$48,465
Mississippi rank#50among 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.

Mississippi
Real personal income per person history in Mississippi$37.24K$49.75K$62.25K20142024
2024 · Mississippi: $48,465 · Rank #50 of 50, highest first · U.S. benchmark: $59,195 · Selected for state comparison
View history and select a period
Mississippi Real personal income per person history
PeriodMississippiCompare
2014$40,125
2015$40,939
2016$41,065
2017$41,790
2018$42,881
2019$43,785
2020$47,533
2021$50,167
2022$46,392
2023$47,517
2024$48,465

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. Mississippi 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. Mississippi 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.

Mississippi · $48,4652024 · 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 Mississippi 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$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 · your comparison$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 Mississippi 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.

8 statements from 5 candidates

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

2 candidates with matching statements · 3 statements

Cliff Johnson

2 statements

Democratic · U.S. House District 1 · MS

CPI / inflation mention

Combat inflation and policies the candidate says are increasing costs for Mississippi households.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Affordability

Candidate campaign source

Combat inflation and policies the candidate says are increasing costs for Mississippi households.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Cliff Johnson — candidate-owned primary source ↗
View 1 more statement from Cliff Johnson
CPI / inflation mention

Combat inflation and the policies that are driving up costs for all Mississippians

Read exact statement & source

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

Candidate campaign source

Combat inflation and the policies that are driving up costs for all Mississippians

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 23, 2026

Cliff Johnson — candidate-owned primary source ↗

Trent Kelly

1 statement

Republican · U.S. House District 1 · MS

CPI / inflation mention

Protecting Social Security and Medicare for current beneficiaries and saving it for future generations is one of my most important responsibilities as a Member of Congress. It is no secret that demographic and economic factors will not allow us to continue the program unaltered. There are 10,000 bab…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Issues

Candidate campaign source

Protecting Social Security and Medicare for current beneficiaries and saving it for future generations is one of my most important responsibilities as a Member of Congress. It is no secret that demographic and economic factors will not allow us to continue the program unaltered. There are 10,000 baby boomers retiring every day, and when these programs were first enacted there were more than 40 workers for every 1 retiree. Today, that number is below 3 workers per retiree and headed towards 2 to 1. Healthcare costs continue to rise much faster than inflation. In order to ensure the solvency of a program that senior citizens have come to rely on, changes must be made. Social Security cannot continue on the path it is currently on, and politicians who claim they want to preserve the program without offering reforms are not being honest. The days of doing nothing, burying our heads in the sand, and pretending the status quo is sustainable are over. We must ensure that Social Security will be here for the next generation, and I will continue to fight for the future of this vital program. f t # e

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 18, 2026

Trent Kelly campaign source 11 ↗

2026 Mississippi U.S. House — District 3 — General Election

1 candidate with matching statements · 3 statements

Democratic · U.S. House District 3 · MS

CPI / inflation mention

Improve national security and lower food inflation

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Learn more by clicking the dropdown menu:

Candidate campaign source

Improve national security and lower food inflation

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Michael A. Chiaradio — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
View 2 more statements from Michael A. Chiaradio
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

One of the most important ways we can protect America’s competitive position is to strengthen domestic food production. Many decades of inattentive policy have caused high food prices and created a more vulnerable supply chain.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Learn more by clicking the dropdown menu:

Candidate campaign source

One of the most important ways we can protect America’s competitive position is to strengthen domestic food production. Many decades of inattentive policy have caused high food prices and created a more vulnerable supply chain.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Michael A. Chiaradio — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗
Consumer prices & cost-of-living context

As profitable small farms gradually increase production nationwide, our existing large producers will use their economies of scale to stabilize food prices domestically and increase our exports.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Learn more by clicking the dropdown menu:

Candidate campaign source

As profitable small farms gradually increase production nationwide, our existing large producers will use their economies of scale to stabilize food prices domestically and increase our exports.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Michael A. Chiaradio — candidate-owned primary source 2 ↗

2026 Mississippi U.S. House — District 4 — General Election

2 candidates with matching statements · 2 statements

Carl Boyanton

1 statement

Independent · U.S. House District 4 · MS

CPI / inflation mention

Reform higher education financing to curb tuition inflation by tying federal aid more closely to outcomes like graduation rates, job placement, and return on investment.

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Education and workforce development

Candidate campaign source

Reform higher education financing to curb tuition inflation by tying federal aid more closely to outcomes like graduation rates, job placement, and return on investment.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Carl Boyanton — candidate-owned primary source 9 ↗

Mike Ezell

1 statement

Republican · U.S. House District 4 · MS

CPI / inflation mention

Mike will work to improve the lives of everyday Mississippians by fighting Biden's inflation. He'll fight to lower the prices of gas, groceries, and fertilizer by increasing domestic energy production and bringing critical supply chain jobs back to America from China. He'll work to bring more high-p…

Read exact statement & source

Source topic or question: Sheriff Mike Ezell Will Stand for Us.

Candidate campaign source

Mike will work to improve the lives of everyday Mississippians by fighting Biden's inflation. He'll fight to lower the prices of gas, groceries, and fertilizer by increasing domestic energy production and bringing critical supply chain jobs back to America from China. He'll work to bring more high-paying jobs to our state and to support every business that calls South Mississippi home, from the biggest shipyard to the smallest family farm.

Statement date not recorded · Profile reviewed Sep 15, 2026

Mike Ezell — candidate-owned primary source 7 ↗
How statements are selected

This section matches specific inflation, consumer prices and the cost of living terms in retained, attributed source text from published Mississippi 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.

Mississippi incumbents

What incumbents are proposing

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

3 matching sponsorships or proposals · 3 Mississippi incumbents. These filters apply only to this section.

Rep. Mike Ezell

U.S. House of Representatives, Mississippi District 4 · R–MS

1 proposal
View proposals from Rep. Mike Ezell
U.S. Congress · Mississippi delegation · HR 3061

BRIDGE Production Act of 2025

Apr 29, 2025 · In Congress

Rep. Mike Ezell · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

The reviewed portion of HR 3061 would require at least 26 additional offshore oil-and-gas lease sales over ten years, including 20 in the Gulf and six in Cook Inlet, with specified schedules and lease terms. It remains a proposal. A lease sale is not production, and the proposed dates do not establish that sales occurred or Gulf Coast regular-gasoline prices changed. Each sale would offer at least 80 million Gulf acres or one million Cook Inlet acres, or all remaining unleased acres if fewer, within the specified program areas. Acceptable bids would lead to leases within 90 days. The selected section also permits waiver of Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act requirements that would delay final approval.

Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

The price is EIA’s six-state Gulf Coast regional regular-gasoline series, including Mississippi, rather than a Mississippi statewide estimate. Crude oil is an input to gasoline; offshore oil leasing concerns upstream supply. Lease sales do not establish production or a pump-price change. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

3.Offshore oil and gas lease sales(a)DefinitionsIn this section:(1)Offshore lease saleThe term offshore lease sale means an oil and gas lease sale that—(A)is held by the Secretary in accordance with the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), notwithstanding the requirements of section 18 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1344);(B)with respect to lease sales in the Gulf of America, offers the same lease form, lease terms, economic conditions, and stipulations as contained in the final notice of sale titled Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Region-Wide Oil and Gas Lease Sale 254 (85 Fed. Reg. 8010; February 12, 2020);(C)with respect to lease sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, offers the same lease form, lease terms, economic conditions, and stipulations as contained in the final notice of sale titled Cook Inlet Planning Area Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sale 244 (82 Fed. Reg. 23291 (May 22, 2017)); and(D)if an acceptable bid has been received for any tract offered in the lease sale (as determined under the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Summary of Procedures for Determining Bid Adequacy at Offshore Oil and Gas Lease Sales Effective March 2016, with Central Gulf of Mexico Sale 241 and Eastern Gulf of Mexico Sale 226), results in the issuance of a lease for such tract not later than 90 days after the date of the sale to the highest bidder.(2)SecretaryThe term Secretary means the Secretary of the Interior.(b)WaiverThe Secretary may waive any requirement of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) that would delay final approval of an offshore lease sale under subsection (c).(c)RequirementIn addition to the lease sales planned pursuant to section 18 of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344), the Secretary shall conduct not fewer than 26 offshore lease sales during the 10-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, including 20 lease sales in the Gulf of America and 6 lease sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area.(d)Timing(1)Gulf of AmericaIn conducting the offshore lease sales in the Gulf of America required under subsection (c), the Secretary shall hold not fewer than 1 lease sale under this paragraph on or before each of the following dates:(A)August 31, 2025.(B)March 31, 2026.(C)August 31, 2026.(D)March 31, 2027.(E)August 31, 2027.(F)March 31, 2028.(G)August 31, 2028.(H)March 31, 2029.(I)August 31, 2029.(J)March 31, 2030.(K)August 31, 2030.(L)March 31, 2031.(M)August 31, 2031.(N)March 31, 2032.(O)August 31, 2032.(P)March 31, 2033.(Q)August 31, 2033.(R)March 31, 2034.(S)August 31, 2034.(T)March 31, 2035.(2)Cook inlet planning areaIn conducting the offshore lease sales in the Cook Inlet Planning Area required under subsection (c), the Secretary shall hold not fewer than 1 lease sale under this paragraph on or before each of the following dates:(A)August 31, 2025.(B)March 31, 2027.(C)August 31, 2028.(D)March 31, 2030.(E)August 31, 2032.(F)March 31, 2034.(e)Area offered for lease(1)Acreage(A)Gulf of AmericaFor each offshore lease sale conducted under subsection (c) in the Gulf of America, the Secretary shall offer for leasing not fewer than—(i)80,000,000 acres; or(ii)if the total number of unleased acres is less than 80,000,000 acres, the total number of such acres.(B)Cook Inlet Planning AreaFor each offshore lease sale conducted under subsection (c) in the Cook Inlet Planning Area, the Secretary shall offer for leasing not fewer than—(i)1,000,000 acres; or(ii)if the total number of unleased acres is less than 1,000,000 acres, the total number of such acres.(2)Location(A)Gulf of AmericaAn offshore lease sale conducted under subsection (c) in the Gulf of America shall offer the areas identified as the Proposed Final Program Area in Figure S–1 of the 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program published on November 18, 2016, by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (as announced in the notice of availability of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management entitled Notice of Availability of the 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program (81 Fed. Reg. 84612 (November 23, 2016))).(B)Cook Inlet Planning AreaAn offshore lease sale conducted under subsection (c) in the Cook Inlet Planning Area shall only offer an area within the Planning Area Boundary depicted in Figure S–2 of the 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program published on November 18, 2016, by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (as announced in the notice of availability of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management entitled Notice of Availability of the 2017–2022 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Final Program (81 Fed. Reg. 84612 (November 23, 2016))).
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith

U.S. Senate, Mississippi · R–MS

1 proposal
View proposals from Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith
U.S. Congress · Mississippi delegation · S 470

Respect State Housing Laws Act

Feb 6, 2025 · In Congress

Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

S 470 would strike subsection 4024(c) of the CARES Act, which contains the federal notice-to-vacate requirement for covered dwellings, including its 30-day minimum. It does not itself rewrite every state eviction rule or guarantee any rent change. The bill remains pending; the linked statutory reference identifies the provision proposed for deletion.

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. No enactment of this bill is recorded at the review cutoff.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental utility-payment duties and notice-to-vacate rules concern tenancy and housing costs without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

1.Short titleThis Act may be cited as the Respect State Housing Laws Act. 2.ClarificationSection 4024 of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 9058) is amended by striking subsection (c).
Review official supporting evidence ↗

Shanda Yates

Mississippi House of Representatives, District 64 · I–MS

1 proposal
View proposals from Shanda Yates
Mississippi Legislature · HB 1404

Fraudulent Utility Conversion; create crime when landlord fails to pay utilities and tenants' utilities are interrupted.

Mar 25, 2026 · Enacted

Shanda Yates · Sponsored

FactVote reviewed summary

HB 1404 creates an offense for a person who receives money under a lease to pay utility bills and knowingly, willfully and unlawfully fails to apply it as required, with the failure-to-pay deadline measured as 60 days from receipt of the utility bill, or uses deception. It provides graduated penalties and restitution, with exceptions for insufficient tenant payments and specified utility-company errors. This concerns rental utility payments rather than setting rents.

Approved by Governor on 2026-03-25. Enactment, effective dates, implementation and current enforceability are distinct.

Why this record is included

Gross rent includes contract rent and estimated tenant-paid utilities and fuel. Rental utility-payment duties and notice-to-vacate rules concern tenancy and housing costs without establishing a change in the statewide median. This connection does not establish causation. Actions after the measurement period cannot explain the earlier observed value.

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

SECTION 1. (1) No person who has received money or payment in accordance with a lease contract or rental agreement to pay utility services shall knowingly, willfully and unlawfully: (a) Fail to apply the money or payment as necessary to satisfy the amount owed for the utility services within sixty (60) days of the person's receipt of the bill for utility services. (b) Use or cause an agent or employee to use any deception, false pretense, or false promise in the failure to apply the money or payment as necessary to satisfy the amount owed for the utility services. (2) (a) When the misappropriation or taking amounts to a value of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) or more, the offender, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for not more than twenty (20) years, fined not more than Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), or both. (b) When the misappropriation or taking amounts to a value of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or more, but less than a value of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), the offender, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for not more than ten (10) years, fined not more than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00), or both. (c) When the misappropriation or taking amounts to a value of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or more, but less than a value of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), the offender, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for not more than five (5) years, fined not more than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00), or both. (d) (i) When the misappropriation or taking amounts to less than a value of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), the offender, upon conviction, shall be imprisoned for not more than six (6) months in the county jail, fined not more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or both. (ii) If the offender convicted under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph has been convicted two (2) or more times previously, upon any subsequent conviction, the offender shall be imprisoned for not more than two (2) years, fined not more than Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000.00), or both. (e) In addition to the penalties provided in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this subsection, a person convicted under the provisions of this section shall be ordered to make full restitution to the victim and any other person who has suffered a financial loss as a result of the offense pursuant to Chapter 37, Title 99, Mississippi Code of 1972. (3) The provisions of this section shall not apply if the person who has received money or payment for utility services is unable to pay the bill for utility services because either: (a) The tenant or lessee has failed to timely pay sufficient funds to satisfy the specific amount owed in the bill for utility services. (b) The reason for the delay in receipt of either the bill or payment for utility services is due to an administrative, clerical, or technical error or omission on behalf of the company providing utility services. (4) For purposes of this section: (a) "Person" means a natural or juridical person, including, but not limited to, a sole proprietorship, corporation, company, limited liability company, partnership, limited liability partnership, trust, incorporated or unincorporated association, or any other individual or entity. "Person" shall also include any representative, director, trustee, agent, or officer of a juridical person who is authorized and responsible for making payments for utility services. (b) "Utility services" means any water, electricity, gas, heat, or sewer services, whether privately, municipally, cooperatively, or investor-owned.
Review official supporting evidence ↗
What sponsorship and proposal counts tell us

Only current Mississippi 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 Mississippi statistic. Collection reviewed Sep 16, 2026.