PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1784)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 25, 2003
Weapons of Mass Destruction Prohibition Improvement Act of 2003 - Amends the Federal criminal code to expand the jurisdictional bases and scope of the prohibition against the use of, and threat, attempt, or conspiracy to use, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to cover such actions against property within the United States under specified circumstances, including property owned, leased, or used by a foreign government.
Restores the coverage of chemical weapons under the prohibition.
Expands the categories of restricted persons subject to prohibitions relating to select agents to cover persons acting for or on behalf of, or operating subject to the direction or control of: (1) a government or official of a country that Secretary of State has determined has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism; or (2) a terrorist organization.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to prohibit participation in the development or production of any special nuclear material or atomic weapon except as authorized by that Act.
Prohibits anyone within the United States or subject to U.S. jurisdiction from willfully participating in or providing material support or resources to a nuclear weapons program or other WMD program of a foreign terrorist power (or attempting or conspiring to do so). Establishes extraterritorial Federal jurisdiction over such offense.
People & committees
Rep. Forbes, J. Randy [R-VA-4] · R–VA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1784)
Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 18, 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.2939 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.2939 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.2939 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.2939 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.