LEGISLATION TO MAKE IT A FEDERAL CRIME TO ATTACK OR ASSASSINATE THE PRESIDENT, THE VICE PRESIDENT, OR ANY OTHER OFFICER NEXT IN LINE OF SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENT-ELECT, AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000500170008-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 9, 2003
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: January 4, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

1965 Approved FotU Rs"tb,~1UN2,nn~~~p.A~.~~11AAGVRll~RppP6lgC?I1Qp4SER000500170008-1
~E ~I - 43
different committees worked the election of
many candidates in addition to himself.
On the application of Mr. Frankenberry,
County Judge John H. Galloway Jr. issued
the subpena. It directed Mr, OTTINGER to
appear in State supreme court here on Jan-
. uary 19 with all financial records of the
committees that received contributions and
spent money in his campaign.
Mr. Frankenberry said Mr. OTTINGER would
be asked to make a sworn statement about
the funds. This, he said would be of use
to the Congressional committees he has asked
to investigate the election and to disqualify
Mr. OTTINGER.
OTTINGER'S SISTER: "LUMP Sum" GIFT
Representative-elect RICHARD L. OTTINGER'S
sister said last night that she had not con-
tributed individually to any of the 27 com-
inittees that financed his Successful Demo-
cratic campaign for Congress in Westchester
Cdurity.
"I was not actively involved in my broth-
er's campaign," said Mrs. Patricia L. Heath,
"and I did offer some money to help. I
contributed the money to my brother, not
to any specific organization. The lump sum
was given to him to do with as he saw fit."
The candidate's sister said she was not
at all sure exactly how much money she had
donated or why all the gifts were listed in
the amount of, $3,000 but she felt she could
explain it.
"As I understand it," she said, "gifts are
not permitted by family members in excess
of $3,000. That's the sort of thing you had
better ask my brother about."
Mrs. Heath, reached iii Boston by tele-
phone, said: "We did try to keep to the
election law, I think that Is understood."
Then a few moments later, she added: "You
know, campaigns cost quite a bit."
Aft. William Ottinger, the candidate's
mother, who, the records shov(, contributed
to 27 different campaign committees, could
not be reached for comment.
Yesterday a study of campaign financial
records in Albany confirmed that the mother
and sister of the ]Democratic Representative-
elect were the sole or major contributors to
Mr. OTTINGER's campaign.
On Monday, James R. Frankenberry
charged that 34 committees were set up to
finance Mr. OTTIN.GER's campaign, and that
Mrs. Ottinger and Mrs. Heath were exclusive
contributors to 22 of the groups.
A Herald Tribune examination-not yet
ted-of the records showed 27 com-
"ittpees listed in the election campaign fi-
nances files at_thg Department of State in
Albany.
Mr, Frankenberry, who had campaigned
for Republican Representative Robert L.
Barry, defeated by Mr. OTTINGER in the West-
chester-Putnam 25th District, has asked the
House to bar the new Representative, charg-
ing violations of State and Federal election
laws.
In Washington, a spokesman for the House
Administrative Committee said Mr. Frank-
enberry's complaint had not ben received.
His letter was dated last Saturday, to fall
within a statute of limitation on election
complaints.
The House spokesman said the complaint
would be investigated to see if it had merit,
and a decision made on whether to pursue
the matter or drop it.
There is no law to prevent a candidate
from having as many separate campaign com-
mittees as he can manage. New York State
law, however, limits a candidate's personal
campaign expenses to $8,000, and places the
same limit on all committees taking part
"Bole~y in his election. " Mr. OTTINGER said
MoncT .y that provision would not apply to
his case, since the committees were for all
Democratic candidates, and were set up to
advance the cause of better government.
In almost every case the records showed
Mrs. Ottinger and Mrs. Heath contributed
$3,000 each to the committees they financed.
Under Federal law, the donor of any gift
over $3,000 must pay a gift tax. There Is no
limit on the number of $3,000 gifts that may
be made in a single year without paying a
gift tax, but each gift-including political
contributions-must be to a separate entity.
Organizations as well as individuals may re-
ceive such tax-free gifts.
Persons with large estates often distribute
gifts during their lifetime to avoid heavy
estate taxes after they die. The law en-
courages this by establishing the $3,000 ex-
emption.
In the case of the contributions by Mrs.
Ottllger and Mrs. Heath, if all the money
they gave had been to a single campaign
committee everything in the gift over $3,000
Would have been subject to the tax.
Experts said that if the Ottingers had been
trying to avail themselves of the gift-tax
exemption, they would have to establish that
each committee was a separate entity. If the
Internal Revenue Service decides all the
committees were really for a single purpose,
it will order payment of the gift tax.
The Herald Tribune asked Herbert B.
Fischgrund, listed as treasurer or assistant
treasurer of most of the committees, if the
$3,000 figure did have that significance.
He would reply only as follows:
"No Comment. We will let the reports of
the Department of State speak for them-
selves."
Mr. Fischgrund is a partner in the ac-
counting firm of Fields, Fischgrund & Aeren-
son, 420 Lexington Ave. He said his firm has
represented the Ottinger family for some
time.
[From the White Plains (N.Y.) Reporter
Dispatch, Dec. 24, 1964]
THE OTTINGER CASE AS A TEST
Congressman-elect RICHARD L. OTTINGER,
of Westchester's 25th District, has character-
ized as "sour grapes" a complaint by James
R. Frankenberry, of Bronxville, that Mr. OT-
TINGER's estimated $200,000 in campaign ex-
penditures, through a host of committees,
violated Federal and State statutes.
But the situation shouldn't, and can't, be
dismissed that casually even though, as Mr.
OTTINGER contends, he may have operated
within the letter of applicable laws. The
basic question is whether or not he violated
the spirit or intent of any such laws. And
that raises the further, and very pertinent,
question of whether or not those laws need
drastic revision.
Nor is it relevant to the fundamental issue
here that Mr. OTTINGERi may only have done
what other men of large personal means, or
with vast family funds at their disposal,
have done to win public office. The possi-
bility of the use of the Ottinger technique by
others serves only to emphasize the im-
portance of establishing, once and for all,
sound, sensible, and clearly defined public
policy on such campaign spending.
The devising of such a policy will not be
a simple matter, obviously. It should take
into account not only the amounts and the
sources of funds but the propriety of the
uses to which they may be put.
Thus, rather than being a "sour grapes"
gesture by a supporter of Congressman Rob-
ert R. Barry, who lost to Mr. OTTINGER, Mr.
Frankenberry's challenge of the winner's
campaign finance operation may well prove
an important public service.
Certainly even the bare possibility that
the personal wealth of a candidate and his
family may be employed in ways to over-
whelm a less affluent opponent must be dis-
turbing to all who are concerned with the,
fundamental integrity of the democratic
process in this country.
It will, therefore, be deplorable, to say the
very least, if the majority leadership of the
House of Representatives fails to insist that
the Frankenberry complaint be thoroughly
investigated and constructively passed upon
by whatever congressional committees or
other Federal agencies may be charged with
upholding the validity and integrity of the
election process. Certainly it is to be ex-
pected that Mr. OTTINGER will cooperate fully
and frankly with any such inquiry. Per-
sistence in his "sour grapes" dismissal of the
situation can only serve to impair his stand-
ing with many of those Westchester people
who vote for him.
L
LEGI LATION O MAKE IT A FED-
ERAL CRIME TO ATTACK OR AS-
SASSINATE THE PRESIDENT, THE
VICE PRESIDENT, OR ANY OTHER
OFFICER NEXT IN LINE OF SUC-
CESSION TO THE PRESIDENT,
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT, AND THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
(Mr. SCHWEIKER (at the request of
Mr. HALL) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. Speaker, a
number of colleagues on both sides of
the aisle join me today in introducing
legislation making it a Federal crime to
attack or assassinate the President, the
Vice President, or other officer next in
line of succession to the President, the
President-elect, and the Vice-President-
elect. I urge the support of the House
for passage of this proposal at the
earliest possible moment.
Following the tragic death of President
Kennedy I was astounded to learn that
assassination of the President is not a
Federal crime although attacks upon a
number of lesser Federal officials are
covered by the United States Code. Im-
mediately I introduced H.R. 9232 to cor-
rect this anomalous situation and sev-
eral colleagues joined me in that effort
during the 88th Congress.
Last fall, the Warren Commission, in
its report, recommended to the Congress
that it enact such legislation. The bill,
which I have introduced today, follows
exactly the recommendations of the
Commission.
It is inconceivable to me that a crime
of the magnitude of Presidential assassi-
nation, affecting as it does the security
and welfare of the Nation, is not cov-
ered by Federal statutes. In 1902 similar
legislation passed both Houses but failed
of enactment when the other body re-
fused to accept the conference report.
During debate on that measure its spon-
sor, Senator George F. Hoar, pointed
out that "what this bill means to punish
is the crime of interruption of the Gov-
ernment of the United States and the
destruction of its security by striking
down the life of the person who is actu-
ally in the exercise of the executive
power, or of such persons as have been
constitutionally and lawfully provided
to succeed thereto in case of a vacancy.
It is important for this country that the
interruption shall not take place for an
hour." The gentleman's remarks are
even more appropriate in 1965.
Enactment of this legislation would
mean that Federal law-enforcement of-
Approved For Release 2003/10/22 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500170008-1
 44 Approved For Rr E~WIUN L C - 87B0 00500170008-1 January 4
ficials would investigate these crimes
against our highest officials. At present,
Federal agencies such as the FBI par-
ticipate, in the words of the Warren
'Commission report,, "only upon the suf-
ferance of the local authorities." In ad-
dition, the Commission has pointed out
that this legislation "will insure that any
suspects who are arrested will be Fed-
eral prisoners, subject to Federal pro-
tection from vigilante justice and other
threats."
It has been more than 13 months since
I first urged the House to act upon such
legislation. I renew my plea on this
opening day of the 89th Congress hoping
that the measures introduced today by
my colleagues and me can be carefully
but speedily considered.
(Mr. COLLIER (at the request of Mr.
HALL) was granted permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
[Mr. COLLIER'S remarks will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
(Mr. COLLIER (at the request of Mr.
HALL) was granted permission to extend
.his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
[Mr. COLLIER'S remarks will appear
hereafter In the Appendix.]
LECISLA77ON DESIGNED TO CRE-
ATE A 'NEW CABINET-LEVEL DE-
PARTMENT OF EDUCATION
(Mr. FOGARTY (at the request of Mr.
MATSUNAGA) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. FOGs'ARTY. Mr.' Speaker, today I
have introduced legislation to create
within our executive branch of the Fed-
eral Government a new Cabinet-level De-
partment of Education. In my judg-
ment, this proposal belongs at the top of
the agenda in Our consideration of na-
tional affairs at the outset of this new
Congress.
Education today. is our biggest national
business, our principal domestic activity.
We now recognize Its importance at all
levels of our government-except, in-
deed, at the Federal level. Expenditures
for education are the biggest item in the
budgets of our States and localities, rep-
resenting 37 percent of all disbursements.
These funds for education now total $25
billion and are decidely on the increase.
In total funds education now ranks
second to national defense as our largest
public expenditure and accounts for 16
percent of the budget of our Federal,
State, and local governments. Public
and private expenditures for education
now total $33.7 billion and represent 5.8
percent of our gross national product.
Education engages the time of 3 out of
10 of all bur citizens as their principal
activity.
These statistics, impressive as they
may be, are merely reference points to
the importance of education in our na-
tional progress and survival. The foun-
dation of our scientific and technical
growth, the means of transmitting and
improving our culture, education today
Is the mainspring of our economic and
social development. It is basic to all
public functions including our national
defense and security. This we have
known in the past, perhaps dimly. To-
day we are seeing education with far
more clarity as a national means of
meeting the thrust of communism, of
adjusting to the dislocations of automa-
tion, of reacting to the persisting causes
of poverty in a day of growing abund-
ance.
A half century ago, the philosopher,
.Alfred North Whitehead, said
When one considers the education of a
nation's young, the broken lives, the de-
feated hopes, the national failures which re-
sult from the frivolous inertia with which it
is treated, it is difficult to restrain within
oneself a savage rage. In the conditions of
modern life the rule is absolute, the race
which does not value trained intelligence
is doomed.' Not all your heroism, not all
your social charm; not all your wit, not all
your victories on land or at sea, can move
back the finger of fate. Today we maintain
ourselves. Tomorrow science will have
moved forward yet one more step, and there
will be no appeal from the judgment which
will then be pronounced on the uneducated.
Now within more recent years the
Federal Government has made notable
strides in supporting this Nation's edu-
cation. The 88th Congress set a mag-
nificent record in its enactment of laws
on educat,on's behalf, Its accomplish-
ments include aid to construct higher
education facilities, to broaden and mod-
ernize vocational and technical educa-
tion, to educate the unemployed and the
technologically displaced, to build public
libraries, to train teachers of the handi-
capped, to expand the multipurpose Na-
tional Defense Education Act, as well
as legislation for economic `opportunity
and for civil rights.
? This record moved President Johnson
to salute the 88th as our "Education
Congress." But our work is far from
done. In the 89th Congress we must
continue these advances to meet fully
the critical needs of education for all our
citizens.
Now, perhaps, we are freed from the
crippling myth that the Federal Govern-
ment must not involve itself in educa-
tion. Now, let us hope this folly is behind
us and we can move sensibly forward
as a nation to create an educational
structure adequate to the job ahead.
But we in Congress can only enact
measures. We cannot carry them for-
ward to fulfillment.
Today we devote almost $5 billion a
year of our Federal budget to education
including service, training, and research.
A major share of this, approximately
one-third, is expended by the Office of
Education either directly or by transfer
of funds from other agencies. Needless
to add, a major share of the education
budget still lies outside the Office of
Education.
In the present structure of this Office,
we are avoiding the direct identification
of major educational aids as part of an
essential Federal program. As a result
of our shortsightedness, we have seen
educational activities proliferate through
the Federal structure under a variety of
agencies and departments.
The Committee on Education and La-
bor in 1963 reported that some 42 agen-
cies of the Federal Government were
presently continuing programs within
the definition of "education." Indeed
education functions have become so dif-
fuse at the Federal level that it takes
a major effort such as that represented
by the committee report of June 1963
simply to catalog the total effort.
Education has now outdistanced the
Federal structure that was designed
through the Federal Security Agency a
quarter century ago to contain it, along
with other semirelated functions. The
plain fact of the matter is that the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare is today inadequate to the task
of providing executive leadership to the
vital function of education, while seek-
ing to coordinate this people-to-people
function along with similar functions of
government.
It makes no sense to continue to talk
of coordinating the function of educa-
tion with those of health and welfare,
when many major education components
today lie outside the coordinating mech-
ahism of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. It would be
much more realistic and useful to create
a new structure which recognizes the
special role of education as a social
function that already covers a broad
spectrum of Federal interests. Thus, a
Department of Education could ulti-
mately take in a number of existing
programs which have been established
apart from the structure of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare
because the present Department could
not contain them. This has resulted in
inefficiency and impaired effectiveness
in the whole educational structure. Once
the new Department of Education is
created I would urge the President to
employ his reorganization powers to lo-
cate within it other appropriate activi-
ties.
Today the responsibilities given by the
Congress and the President to the Office
of Education have created pressure for a
much different agency in scope and func-
tion than the small and relatively unim-
portant statistical Office that was incor-
porated into the Federal Security Agency
in 1939 and then brought under a similar
umbrella under the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare over a
decade ago. Its current budget totals
$11/2 billion. It expends another one-
quarter billion dollars transferred from
other Federal agencies of the Govern-
ment. In 1966 its regular budget will
approximate $2 billion, and its legisla-
tive proposals will probably be at least as
large. Thus, despite the fact that the
Office now accounts for less than half of
the education budget of the Federal Gov-
ernment, it already has a budget that
exceeds that of several Cabinet depart-
ments.
When we are discussing education pro-
grams which are reaching into the $8 to
$10 billion range in the Federal budget,
we are derelict in our duty if we fail
to recognize the need to consolidate as
Approved For Release 2003/10/22 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000500170008-1