PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4918)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jul 7, 2016
Reaffirms that the special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom will not be affected by the outcome of the June 23, 2016, European Union membership referendum or by changes to the United Kingdom's relationship with the European Union.
Recognizes that continued defense and intelligence cooperation between the United States and the United Kingdom is vital to the national security of both countries.
Expresses support for the continued political and military leadership displayed by both nations in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Urges the President to commence discussions with the government of the United Kingdom, at its request, to ensure the continuance of the current bilateral trade relationship and, as necessary, negotiations for the development of a free-trade agreement between the two countries.
People & committees
Sen. Rubio, Marco [R-FL] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4918)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.Res.520 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.Res.520 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.Res.520 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.Res.520 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.