Should Congress act at once to remodel the socalled insanity defense as it applies to Presidents of the United States? Or should it defer that aspect of the issue until a broader revision of the statute is undertaken? Democratic Rep. Mario Biaggi of New York thinks the lawmakers should move quickly to revise the bill as it applies to presidents and their immediate successors. “In the sense that we give the protection of the president’s life an important priority in this nation – so. too, must we extend this protection to include insuring that those who would seek to kill or maim the president be guaranteed swift and certain punishment,” he said. Biaggi has introduced a bill which would bar the insanity defense in cases invoving the assassination, attempted assassination, kidnapping, and assault on the president and his immediate successor. “I chose this limited route because I believe uch a bill could be passed y Congress this year,” the awmaker said. “I do not share the same optimism with respect to a broader revision in the insanity defense statute,” he added – and he probably is right, given the often drawn-out legislative process. Many members of Congress have expressed outrage concerning the “not guilty by reason of insanity” verdict in the case of John W. Hinckley Jr., accused of shooting and wounding President Reagan and three others March 30, 1981. The public hasn’t exactly remained silent, either. The jury decision resulted in Hinckley’ being shifted to a Washington mental hospital, from which he technically could be released within three months if he can convince judicial authorities he no longer poses a threat to society. History gives plenty of reason for concern about presidential safety. Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy – one-tenth of our presidents – have been killed by assassins. Five attempts have been made on the lives of other presidents. Numberous lawmakers have spoken out for changing the “not guilty by reason of insanity” to some other terminology, like “guilty but mentally ill” which would allow a defendant to be sentenced under criminal law with special psychiatric treatment. Comprehensive bills on the entire issue are pending. If Congress plans to proceed soon with an overall revision of insanity defense law, perhaps Biaggi’s bill can wait. If not, why not debate his proposal with as much disa patch as possible? And if the New Yorker’s measure indeed is brought up for debate, why not consider expanding its coverage to include presidential candidates? In at least three instances, attempts have been made on the lives of presidential eandidates, one successfuly. Robert F. Kennedy was slain by a gunman in California in 1968 while campaigning. George Wallace was partially paralyzed by an assailant’s bullet in 1972 in Marlyand. And back in 1912, presidential nominee Theodore Roosevelt was shot prior to a Milwaukee speech. An eyeglasses case in his pocket deflected the bullet and probably saved his life.