4 : 5 4 However, NEPA does not specify whether this balancing of environmental and other considera- tions must be spelled out in the environmental impact statement under Section 102(2)(C). Each of the five items expressly required to be included in the statement relates to environ- mental effects -- except the third, which does not specify what type of information should be given about "alternatives to the proposed action.” From the bare language of Section 102(2) (Cc), it is not wholly clear whether the 102 statement is to catalog only the environmental effects of the proposed action and of alternatives, or whether the statement is to discuss all of the important considerations bearing on the wisdom of the ‘proposed action. The legislative history: suggests that Congress did Eewect the.102“statement-“to-record=“theagenéy' S.. Te trade-offs-of “competing vatues >eplaining “the bill-on the ‘Seniate-floor, “Senater-Jackson- said: | Subsection 102(c) "6 establishes a procedure designed to insure that in instances where a proposed major Federal action would have a significant impact on the environment that the impact has in fact been considered, that any adverse effects which cannot be te ee avoided are justified bysome other Stated >" = consideration of national policy, that shortterm uses are consistent with long-term 2% productivity, and that any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are warranted. 115 Cong. Rec. 29055 (Oct. 8, 1969). (Emphasis added.) This interpretation is supported by several statements in court decisions. In the Calvert Cliffs case the court stressed the necessity for "balanc~ ing" under-NEPA and the role of the 102 statement in showing how the balancing was done: