PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 217.
Congressional Research Service
Version 17 · Reported to House with amendment(s) · Oct 6, 2015
National Energy Security Corridors Act
(Sec. 2) This bill amends the Mineral Leasing Act to allow natural gas pipeline rights-of-way through all federally owned lands, including lands in the National Park System, except lands held in trust for an Indian or Indian tribe and lands on the outer Continental Shelf.
The Department of the Interior must: (1) identify and designate suitable federal lands as National Energy Security Corridors for construction, operation, and maintenance of natural gas transmission facilities; and (2) incorporate such Corridors into the relevant agency land use and resource management plans.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Additionally, Interior shall: (1) take into account certain considerations when evaluating federal land for designation as a National Energy Security Corridor, and (2) establish specified procedures to expedite and approve applications for rights-of-way for natural gas pipelines across National Energy Security Corridors.
The governor of a state may request Corridors to be designated on federal land within that state.
For purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 neither the designation of a Corridor, nor the incorporation of a Corridor into agency plans, shall be treated as a major federal action subject to environmental impact evaluation.
All applications for rights-of-way for natural gas transmission facilities across the designated Corridors shall be subject to specified environmental protections.
(Sec. 3) Interior shall notify certain congressional committees whenever an agency or Interior official fails to comply with federal authorization schedules established under the Natural Gas Act.
People & committees
Rep. MacArthur, Thomas [R-NJ-3] · R–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 217.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-285.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Natural Resources. H. Rept. 114-285.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 21 - 15.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans Discharged.
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Discharged.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
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 H.R.2295 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.2295 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.2295 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.2295 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.