PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 7, 2006
Polonium Act of 2006 - States that accreditation of a representative of a foreign government to the United States under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and accreditation of a representative of a foreign government to the United Nations under the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations shall be deemed to be an express waiver of immunity from criminal jurisdiction (for the representative) with respect to an act of disbursing radioactive or other substances posing a lasting, clear and present danger to public health. Authorizes the President to waive such provision if in the U.S. national interest.
Expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should propose amendments to such Conventions to ensure that persons who enjoy immunity from criminal jurisdiction (under such Conventions) do not receive such immunity with respect to acts of disbursing radioactive or other substances posing a lasting, clear and present danger to public health.
People & committees
Rep. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL-10] · R–IL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
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: Aug 15, 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 H.R.6415 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 H.R.6415 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 H.R.6415 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 H.R.6415 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.