Prior to the 1960s, little formal consideration was given to the potential impact of human activity on the environment. Beginning in the late 1950s and into the 1960s, the public became increasingly aware of and concerned about those impacts. During that time, members of Congress debated the need for a national policy on the environment and for an Executive-level council or committee that could provide advice to the President on environmental policy issues. The statute that ultimately addressed these needs was the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347). Signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970, NEPA was the first of several major environmental laws passed in the 1970s. It declared a national policy to protect the environment. To implement its policy, NEPA requires federal agencies to provide a detailed statement of environmental impacts, subsequently referred to as an environmental impact statement (EIS), for every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The act also created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the President. Among other duties, CEQ provides oversight of NEPA's implementation. In 1978, CEQ was authorized by executive order to issue regulations applicable to all federal agencies regarding the preparation of EISs. However, CEQ was not authorized to enforce those regulations. As it was subsequently interpreted, NEPA is a procedural statute with two primary aims. First, it obligates federal agencies to consider every significant aspect of the environmental impact of an action before proceeding with it. Second, it ensures that the agency responsible for the action will inform the public what the action is and that it has considered environmental concerns in its decision-making process. In this capacity, NEPA has become one of the primary mechanisms through which the public is able to participate in the federal decision-making process. As a procedural statute, NEPA does not require agencies to elevate environmental concerns above others. Instead, NEPA requires only that the agency assess the environmental consequences of an action and its alternatives before proceeding. If the adverse environmental effects of the proposed action are adequately identified and evaluated, the agency is not constrained by NEPA from deciding that other benefits outweigh the environmental costs and moving forward with the action. Most agencies use NEPA as an umbrella statute—that is, a framework to coordinate or demonstrate compliance with any studies, reviews, or consultations required by any other environmental laws. The use of NEPA in this capacity can lead to confusion. The need to comply with another environmental law, such as the Clean Water Act or Endangered Species Act, may be identified within the framework of the NEPA process, but NEPA itself is not the source of the obligation. Theoretically, if the requirement to comply with NEPA were removed, compliance with each applicable law would still be required. Unlike other environment-related statutes, no individual agency has enforcement authority with regard to NEPA's environmental review requirements. This absence of enforcement authority is sometimes cited as the reason that litigation has been chosen as an avenue by individuals and groups that disagree with how an agency meets NEPA's mandate or EIS requirements for a given project. (For example, a group may charge that an EIS is inadequate or that the environmental impacts of an action will in fact be significant when an agency claims they are not). Critics of NEPA charge that those who disapprove of a federal project will use NEPA as the basis for litigation to delay or halt that project. Others argue that litigation only results when agencies do not comply with NEPA's procedural requirements. Environmental groups often refer to NEPA as the "Magna Carta" of environmental law. They view it as an essential tool to help agencies plan and manage federal actions in a responsible way by requiring policymakers and project sponsors to consider the environmental implications of their actions before decisions are made. Environmental groups also view the NEPA process as an important mechanism in providing the public with an opportunity to be involved in agency planning efforts. Critics charge that the law creates a complicated array of regulations and logistical delays that stall agency action. This report provides information about NEPA's background and legislative history, provisions of the law, the role of the courts and CEQ in its implementation, how agencies implement NEPA's requirements, how the public is involved in the NEPA process, the means by which NEPA is used as an umbrella statute to coordinate or demonstrate compliance with other environmental requirements, and claims by some stakeholders that NEPA causes delays in some federal actions. (For a legally oriented overview of NEPA requirements, see CRS Report RS20621, Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements , by [author name scrubbed].) In the 1950s and 1960s, Congress began to react to increasing public concern about the environment. In the congressional debates that ensued, a key legislative option considered was the declaration of a national environmental policy. Such a policy would require all federal agencies, whose actions were often seen as significant sources of pollution, to adhere to certain environmental values and goals. Advocates of a national policy argued that without a specific environmental policy, federal agencies were neither able nor inclined to consider the environmental impacts of their actions in fulfilling the agency's mission. Debate also existed regarding the creation of an Executive-level board or council that would gather information regarding the state of the environment and provide environmental policy advice to the President. For at least 10 years before NEPA was enacted, Congress debated issues that the act would ultimately address. The act was modeled on the Resources and Conservation Act of 1959, introduced by Senator James E. Murray in the 86 th Congress. That bill would have established an environmental advisory counsel in the office of the President, declared a national environmental policy, and required the preparation of an annual environmental report. In the years following the introduction of Senator Murray's bill, similar bills were introduced and hearings were held to discuss the state of the environment and Congress's potential responses to perceived problems. In 1968, a joint House-Senate colloquium was convened by the chairmen of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Senator Henry Jackson) and the House Committee on Science and Astronautics (Representative George Miller) to discuss the need for and potential means of implementing a national environmental policy. In the colloquium, some members of Congress expressed a continuing concern over federal agency actions affecting the environment. Governor Laurence Rockefeller, a participant in the colloquium, stated before the joint committee: [W]e do not have a clearly stated national attitude toward the environment. In the areas of civil rights, education, full employment, and a number of others, the Congress of the United States has set forth a clearly understood national policy. This lack of overall national policy has been reflected in recent action of the courts in reversing decisions of administrative agencies on the grounds that they did not give sufficient consideration to environmental factors. Clearly, these agencies need better guidelines. Many of the concepts and ideas drawn from this colloquium would ultimately form the basis for the bills that would become NEPA. For example, in discussing new approaches to government, Senator Jackson argued that new approaches to environmental management were required, and he urged the colloquium to provide thoughts on possible "action-forcing" processes that could be put into operation. The discussion of action-forcing processes to implement a national policy provided the seeds of the idea that would eventually become the requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement. The bills that would become NEPA were introduced in the Senate and House in 1969 by Senator Jackson and Representative John Dingell. In introducing the Senate bill, Senator Jackson stated that its purpose was to "lay the framework for a continuing program of research and study which will insure that present and future generations of Americans will be able to live in and enjoy an environment free of hazards to mental and physical well-being." To accomplish this end, the Senate bill authorized federal agencies to conduct investigations and gather data on environmental issues. The bill also established a Council on Environmental Quality to analyze and study the information gathered and to advise and assist the President in the formulation of national policies. The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held a hearing on the proposed bills in April 1969. During the hearing, the concept of creating some action-forcing mechanism, as a means of implementing a national environmental policy, was again discussed. One of the witnesses to provide testimony at the hearing was Dr. Lynton Caldwell. An interchange during the hearing between Dr. Caldwell and Senator Jackson is considered by some as the point at which the provision behind the environmental impact statement requirement was introduced. Following are relevant excerpts from that testimony: Dr. Caldwell: I would urge that in shaping [an environmental] policy, it have an action-forcing, operational aspect ... For example, it seems that a statement of policy by the Congress should at least consider measures to require Federal agencies, in submitting proposals, to contain within the proposals an evaluation of the effect of those proposals upon the state of the environment... Senator Jackson: I have been concerned with the inadequacy of the policy declaration in the bill I have introduced. Obviously this is not enough. It does, however, provide a predicate from which to launch at a discussion as to what is required and how we should proceed ... [W]hat is needed in restructuring the governmental side of this problem is to legislatively create those situations that will bring about an action-forcing procedure the departments must comply with. Otherwise, these lofty declarations are nothing more than that. Senator Jackson further discussed the potential of broadening the policy provision in the bill to stipulate a general requirement applicable to all agencies that have responsibilities that affect the environment. In doing so, the Senator stated that he was "trying to avoid recodification of all the statutes." After the Senate hearing, Senator Jackson introduced amendments to the Senate bill. Included in the amendments was a declaration of national environmental policy.