See also, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321, 4342 and 4344.
Moreover, NEPA is framed in expansive
language that clearly evidences a concern for
all persons subject to federal action which has
a major impact on their environment—not
merely United States’ citizens located in the
fifty states. In its declaration of purpose, for
example, the Congress used the following language:
The purposes of this chapter are: To declare a national policy which will encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between
text of the statute is found throughout the
- committee reports,
heartngs and debates.'!
The remarks of Senator Jackson, NEPA’s
principal sponsor, in submitting the Confer-
ence Committee’s Report to the Senate are
representative:
Whatis involved is a congressional declaration that we do not intend, as a govern-
ment or as a people, to initiate actions
which endanger the continued existence or
the health of mankind: That we will not intentionally initiate actions which will do ir-
forts which will prevent or eliminate dam-
reparable damage to the air, land, and water which supportlife on earth.
stimulate the health and welfare of man; to
people. Its primary concern is with man and
man and his environment; to promote ef-
age to the environment and biosphere and
An environmental policy is a policy for
enrich the understanding of the ecological
his future. The basic principle of the policy
the Nation; and to establish a Council on
Environmental Quality. (Emphasis added).
42 U.S.C. § 4321.
achieve a standard of excellence in man’s
relationships to his physical surroundings.
systems and natural resources important to
And in section 4331 it is stated to be the na-
tional environmentalpolicy, inter alia, that:
{c) The Congress recognizes that each per-
son should enjoy a healthful environment
and that each person has a responsibilityto
contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. (Emphasis
added}.
Similarly broad language is found in sections
4331 (a), 4331(b) and 4332. Indeed, NEPA is
phrased so expansively that there appears to
have been a conscious effort to avoid the use of
restrictive or limiting terminology. -Accord-
ingly, the District of Columbia Circuit has
is that we must strive in all that we do. to
If there are to be departures from this stand-
ard of excellence they should be exceptions
to the rule and the policy. And as ex-
ceptions, they will have to be justified in the
tight of public scrutiny as required by sec-
tion 102 [42 U.S.C. § 4332]. 115 Cong.
Rec. at 40416 (1969).
Additionally, there is specific language in the
committee reports indicating a Congressional
intent that NEPA be broadly applied. In its
discussion of the Environmental Quality Re-
port required by section 4341, the Conference
Committee stated that the Report “will set
forth an up-to-date inventory of the American
environment, broadly and generally identi-
concluded that ‘‘[t]he sweep of NEPA is extraordinarily broad, compelling consideration
fied....” (Emphasis added). Conf. Rep. No.
91-765, in 1969 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News
2751, 277%. Identical language is foundin the
of federal action.” Calvert Cliffs’ Coordinat-
2759.
mission, 449 F.2d 1109, 1122 [2 ERC 1779]
that Congress clearly recognized that environmental problems are worldwide in scope. It
of any and al] types of environmental impact
mg Committee, Inc. v. Atomic Energy Com-
(D.C. Cir. 1971).!
This reading of the scope of NEPAis fully
supported bythe legislative history of the Act.
Though there is no reference to the Trust Territory per se, the broad lanyuage used in the
® Unilizing this language and that found in sec-
tion 4332 which directs that ‘‘all agenmes of the
Federal Government” shall follow the procedural
requirements of NEPA “to the fullest extent pos-
sible,” the plaintiffs argue. in effect. that NEPAfollows every federal agency and is applicable anvwhere in the world that such an agencytakes action
which will significantly affect the quality of the hu-
man environment. Defendants apparently accept
this argument insofar as it applies to territory gov-
House Report. H. Rep. No. 91-378, dd. at
Finally, the legislative history demonstrates
was therefore particularly concerned about the
international implications of United States actions that affect the human environment. In
the House Report, for example, it is stated:
Implicit in this section [42 U.S.C. $ 4341] is
the understanding that the international implications of our current activities will also
be considered. inseparable as they are from
the purely national consequences of our ac-
tions. H. Rep. No. 91-378, supra at 2759.
See also, 115 Cong. Rec. 40416-40417 (1969)
" See generally, S.Rep. No, 91-296, 91st Cong.,
Ist Sess. (1969); H. Rep. No. 91-378, 91st Cong., Ist
O
we pea ae ah
People of Enewetak v. Laird
.
emed solely by the United States, see 32 C_F.R.
Sess. (1969); Conf. Rep. No. 91-765, 9Ist Cong., Ist
under the jurisdiction of a nation other than the
26591,
§ 214.5(b) quoted infra at 15, but not as to territarv
United States. In accordance with the view of the
case taken by this court, it is unnecessary to decide
this question,
C)
4 ERC 1930
Rese (1060); 18 Cane Peo, [O08 pant 223559_
29050-29089, and
40415-40427
(1969);
Hearings on §. 1075, S. 237 and §. 1752 Before Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 91st
Cong., Ist Sess. (1969).
ee cat
bi
i
—e
Se
re bi eS ea