In addition to assessing H.R. 1280, attention is given to the Administration's proposal for dealing with the insanity defense and related procedural issues, H.R. 1329 and 1196. In eliminating the volitional portion of the insanity test proposed by the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code, both H.R. 1280 and the Administration bill are correct in acknowledging the impossibility of determining whether a person lacks the ability to obey the law because of a mental disease or defect. The Administration's statement that a defendant must be unable to 'appreciate' the nature and quality or wrongfulness of the act because of mental disease or defect is to be preferred to the H.R. 1280 use of the term 'understand.' The recommended shifting of the burden of proof to the defendant to establish insanity is also favored. The Justice Department endorses proposals for the creation of a Federal commitment procedure for persons found not guilt by reason of insanity. There should be no limit as to the length of such a commitment, since it depends upon the patient's response to treatment. Further, existing Federal commitment procedures for incompetent persons should be retained. The proposed placing of limits on the use of statements and conduct of the defendant during a competency examination or during commitment for treatment at the trial are unreasonable, because they would allow a defendant to have the court consider evidence favorable to an insanity claim resulting from a competency examination without considering resulting unfavorable evidence.