customers, because it would make any information in

reports those institutions are required to give the Secretary

of the Treasury available to 'any other department or agency

of the United States' merely upon the ex parte request of the

head of that department or agency upon an assertion that the

particular information desired is officially needed in connec

tion with a criminal, tax or regulatory investigation or pro

ceeding. While section 212 of the statute makes it lawful for

report information to be made available to other Federal

agencies, it vests power in the Secretary of the Treasury to

prescribe by regulation the conditions and procedures. In line

with the spirit of section 213 that makes the provisions of 5

U. S. Code, Chapters 5 and 7 applicable to this statute with

the exception of 5 U. S. Code, section 552 dealing with

disclosure of information, the Secretary should provide some

administrative procedure whereby the institutions and customers

involved can present their side of the issue, if they wish to do so,

before the request of a Federal agency head for information is

granted by the Secretary of the Treasury."

As issued, the final regulations paid no heed to this suggestion.

No change in the Act would be required to permit the Department

of the Treasury to adopt all of these three suggestions made by the National League, if it could be persuaded to do so.

The National League respectfully requests the Subcommittee

to keep these suggestions in mind in carrying out the legislative overseer

duties the Congress placed on itself in the Legislative Reorganization Act

to the Criminal Division of my office, and they heartily concur in the recommendation of General Meyer.

I am sorry that we are unable to take a more definitive
position as an Association, but if these matters are
still pending in the Congress in December, I am sure that
our Criminal Law Committee will make a proper recommenda-
tion to the Association as a whole, and we will act thereupon.
I hope that what opinion is made available to you in the in-
terim will be helpful to the deliberations of your Committee.

Please excuse the slight delay in responding to your letter of August 22, 1972. I wanted to give as many of our members as possible a chance to respond prior to communicating to you on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General.

There is no formal machinery by which our Association
can take a position between its regularly scheduled
summer and mid-winter meetings. Occasionally, on
matters of critical importance, our Executive Committee
has taken a position, but clearly indicating that it cannot
speak for the Association itself. Even this limited ex-
pression takes more time than you have indicated is
available.

The matter was referred to the Chairman of our Committee on Criminal Law and Law Enforcement, Attorney General Clarence A. H. Meyer of Nebraska, who has taken a personal position and has informed the members of his committee as well as the Executive Committee of that decision. I would refer you to his Senators, Roman Hruska and Carl Curtis, for the full statement of his position. Stated simply, his recommendation was that the Association oppose the enactment of S. 3828 and S. 3814. I have referred the matter