H.R. 6500House bill · 119th CongressSigned into lawtext replacedEconomics and Public Finance(orig.)

Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027

Sponsored byJason SmithR-MO-8Introduced Dec 9, 2025Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Sep 2, 2026) — No: 119-103.

This bill is not what it was

It passed the House as AGOA Extension Act. The Senate then struck its text and put different legislation in its place on Aug 8, 2026. The text that came back is Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027. The bill number did not change, so the committee report, the sponsor and the record of who backed it all still refer to the original.

Replacing a bill's text this way is legal and common enough to have a name — a legislative vehicle. We flag it because nothing in the official record does.

What it does

Congressional Research Service, Sep 1, 2026

This bill provides continuing FY2027 appropriations for federal agencies and extends various expiring programs and authorities.

Specifically, the bill provides continuing FY2027 appropriations to federal agencies through the earlier of December 11, 2026, or the enactment of the applicable appropriations act. It is known as a continuing resolution (CR) and prevents a government shutdown that would otherwise occur if the FY2027 appropriations bills have not been enacted when FY2027 begins on October 1, 2026.

The CR funds most programs and activities at the FY2026 levels with several exceptions that provide funding flexibility or additional appropriations for various programs. For example, the CR includes exceptions for

the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);Small Business Administration loans;the Disaster Relief Fund; the Indian Health Service; the Department of Justice; andwildfire suppression activities.In addition, the bill extends several expiring authorizations, including authorities and programs related to

agriculture, flood insurance,cybersecurity,surface transportation, veterans benefits, housing,defense production, andtrade preferences for Haiti and certain countries in sub-Saharan Africa. The bill also includes provisions that

temporarily prohibit the implementation of a regulation that revises guidance for federal financial assistance,delay the implementation of certain changes to the statutory definition of hemp,extend the freeze on cost-of-living adjustments for Members of Congress and limits on pay increases for the Vice President and certain senior political appointees, andprovide death gratuities to beneficiaries of two Members of Congress who died while in office.

Face Value

as passed the Senate
78Focused

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Areas of law−16

    Amends 5 separate titles of the US Code: 23, 31, 38, 40, 49.

  • Length−6

    113 sections, against 20 before length counts against a bill.

  • Name admits it—

    The short title says the bill is broad, so both penalties are halved.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

4 recorded
  • of the Billdecisive vote

    Senate · Aug 8, 2026

    Whether the bill passes the Senate. This is the vote most people mean.

    90 – 6

    Bill Passed

    Every vote →
  • On , as Amendeddecisive vote

    House · Jan 12, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    340 – 54

    Passed

    Every vote →
  • On Motion to and Concur in the Senate Amendments

    House · Sep 1, 2026

    A fast-track vote: no amendments, short debate, and two thirds needed to pass. Used for bills expected to be uncontroversial.

    370 – 48

    Passed

    Every vote →
  • On on the

    Senate · Aug 3, 2026

    Whether to end debate on whether to start debating it. Needs 60 senators; failing here kills the bill without a vote on the bill.

    89 – 4

    Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to

    Every vote →

Who lobbied on this

3 organizations

These organizations told Congress, in their own quarterly disclosures, that they were lobbying on this bill.

  • Emd Serono, Inc.no position stated
    “Monitor federal health funding provisions included in H.R. 6500, the "Continuing Appropriations Act of FY 2027."” filing ↗
  • Fedex Corporationno position stated
    “…- Restoring Trade Fairness Act S.206 - Restoring Trade Fairness Act H.R.407 - Prevent Tariff Abuse Act S.956 - Customs Facilitation Act of 2025 H.R.6500 - The AGOA Extension Act H.R.6504 - The Haiti Economic Lift Program Extension Act H.R.4930 - Information Sharing H.R.5917 Jackson Vanick…” filing ↗
  • “Issues Related to Tariffs, African Growth and Development, H.R.6500 - African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Extension Act of 2025” filing ↗

Most filings say only that an organization lobbied on a bill, not which side it took — where that's the case we say so rather than guessing. Quotes are verbatim from the filing. How this is built.

Discussion

8 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
7
TenthAmendmentDemoTX-4voted Yea1mo ago
Voting no on process rather than substance. This hasn't had a hearing I can find, which is a lot of reach for a bill nobody has questioned in public. Worth knowing who asked for this and when.
6
sylvie_civicDemoFL-11voted Nay1mo ago
I'd like to see the fiscal note before taking a position. The summary is silent on cost, which is normally the whole argument. That's a drafting question rather than a political one.
5
hollowbrookDemoTX-14voted Nay1mo ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
5
cascade_kaiDemoIN-6voted Nay1mo ago
My hesitation is the absence of a sunset. Authorities that never expire never get re-examined either. I'd want the cost estimate before I'd defend either position.
3
sunset_almanacDemoVA-101mo ago
"The states are doing it" cuts the other way for me. If it works there, why federalise it?
4
NorthWoodsNinaDemoNY-12voted Nay1mo ago
What I'd want before deciding: who administers it, out of which budget, and who they answer to when it doesn't work. Whether that matters depends entirely on the implementation date.
3
mfitzhughDemoGA-9voted Nay1mo ago
Genuine question rather than a gotcha: what does success look like in five years? If we can't say, what are we actually voting on? The committee report would settle it either way.
1
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Nay1mo ago
Against, and not because the goal is wrong. It stacks a new process on top of two that already don't talk to each other. The same objection applied to the last version and went unanswered.
Your position on H.R. 6500100% Yea · 2 VoteWire users