59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–418 

TREATMENT OF CERTAIN PAYMENTS IN EUGENICS 

COMPENSATION ACT 

FEBRUARY 9, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. CHAFFETZ, from the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 1698] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, to whom 

was referred the bill (S. 1698) to exclude payments from State eugenics compensation programs from consideration in determining 

eligibility for, or the amount of, Federal public benefits, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment 

and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Roll Call Votes ......................................................................................................... 3 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 3 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 4 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 4 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 4 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 4 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 4 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 4 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 4 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 4 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 5 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

1Kim Severson, Thousands Sterilized, a State Weighs Restitution, N.Y. Times, (Dec. 9, 2011), 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/redress-weighed-for-forced-sterilizations-in-northcarolina.html. 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

4 Id. 

5Thom Tillis, Sen Thom Tillis: State eugenics program victims deserve fair compensation, USA 

Today, (Sept. 9, 2015), http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/09/03/north-carolinaeugenics-victims-compensation-column/31423907/. 6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. 104(a) (2012) (exempting damages or worker’s compensation payments 

from gross income when either is compensating for physical injuries.) 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

S. 1698, the Treatment of Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act of 2015, exempts payments made under a State eugenics compensation program from being considered income or resources in determining the eligibility for, or amount of, any federal 

public benefit. The exemption would allow elderly victims of state 

eugenics programs, many of whom are poor, to receive compensation for their states’ actions against them without losing eligibility 

for needed federal benefits as a result of the temporary increase in 

income from this one-time award. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

In the early part of the 20th century, 32 states had some form 

of eugenics program. Forced sterilization of individuals considered 

to be unfit for reproduction was a prominent part of those programs.1 States targeted the mentally handicapped, as well as poor 

teenagers from large families, people with epilepsy, young rape victims, and people deemed ‘‘feeble-minded’’ by dubious early versions 

of IQ tests.2

Two states with particularly aggressive eugenics programs were 

North Carolina and Virginia.3 North Carolina even granted social 

workers the power to designate people for sterilization.4

Virginia and North Carolina have both enacted programs to provide compensation to victims of their sterilization programs. North 

Carolina’s program awards approximately $20,000 to each victim, 

with a possible increase to $45,000 if no further victims are identified.5 Virginia’s program awards $25,000 to each living victim.6

Without a change in current federal law, these compensation 

payments would count against the victim’s eligibility for federal 

benefits like Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance.7

This legislation would exempt the compensation payments from 

the victim’s income for purposes of calculating federal benefits payments. Such treatment would honor the intent of the compensation 

programs to help make right this vast historical wrong. The legislation would also comport with the ordinary treatment of compensation payments for physical injuries, which are generally not included in gross income for the purpose of determining eligibility for 

federal benefits.8


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 1698, the Treatment of Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act of 2015, was introduced on June 25, 2015, by Senator 

Thom Tillis (R–NC) and passed the Senate by unanimous consent 

on November 30, 2015. Upon receipt in the House, the bill was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. On 

December 9, 2015, the Committee ordered S. 1698 favorably reported by voice vote. Congressman Patrick McHenry (R–NC) is the 

author of companion legislation (H.R. 2949) in the House. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

Designates the short title of the bill as the ‘‘Treatment of Certain 

Payments in Eugenics Compensation Act’’. 

Section 2. Exclusion of payments from State eugenics compensation 

programs from consideration in determining eligibility for, or 

the amount of, Federal public benefits 

Excludes payments made under a State eugenics compensation 

program from being considered income or resources in determining 

eligibility or amount of any federal public benefit. 

Defines ‘‘Federal public benefit’’ as any benefit for which payments or assistance is provided to an individual, household, or family unit by the federal government. Retirement, welfare, health, 

disability, housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, and 

unemployment benefits are specifically enumerated, as are grants, 

contracts, loans, professional licenses, or commercial licenses provided by an agency of the United States. 

Defines ‘‘State eugenics compensation program’’ as a program established by state law intended to compensate individuals who 

were sterilized under the authority of the State. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On December 9, 2015, the Committee met in open session and 

ordered reported favorably the bill, S. 1698, by unanimous consent, 

a quorum being present. 

ROLL CALL VOTES

There were no recorded votes during Full Committee consideration of S. 1698. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill establishes the treatment of State eugenics compensation payments for federal benefit 

purposes. As such this bill does not relate to employment or access 

to public services and accommodations. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

In accordance with clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee’s performance goal or objective of this bill is to honor the intent of the States in compensating the victims of State eugenics programs without jeopardizing 

the victims’ access to federal benefits. 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of this bill establishes or reauthorizes a program of 

the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting this bill does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether 

the provisions of the report include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

This bill does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out this bill. 

However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its report 

a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the DirecVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:57 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR418.XXX HR418

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

tor of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

S. 1698—Treatment of Certain Payments in Eugenics Compensation 

Act 

Summary: S. 1698 would exclude payments made under a state 

eugenics compensation program from being considered as income or 

resources in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, any federal benefit. Those state programs are intended to compensate 

those who had been involuntarily sterilized under state authority 

when such sterilization programs were active in the United States. 

S. 1698 would affect federal spending by allowing a small number of people to receive Medicaid and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) during the period when they would otherwise be ineligible for those programs because of the income they received from 

the state programs. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1698 would increase direct spending by $5 million over the 2016–2025 period. 

S. 1698 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation 

would affect direct spending. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not increase 

net direct spending or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion 

in one or more of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 

2026. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of S. 1698 is shown in the following table. The costs 

of this legislation fall within budget functions 550 (health) and 600 

(income security). For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 1698 

will be enacted early in calendar year 2016. 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016– 

2020 

2016– 

2025 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority ................................ 2 2 * * * * * * * * 5 5 

Estimated Outlays ........... 2 2 * * * * * * * * 5 5 

Note: * = Less than $500,000. 

Basis of estimate: S. 1698 would exclude payments made under 

a state eugenics compensation program from being considered as 

income or resources in determining eligibility for, or the amount of, 

any federal benefit. CBO estimates that S. 1698 would affect 

spending for Medicaid and SSI (the effect on other federal proVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:57 Feb 10, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR418.XXX HR418

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

grams would be negligible). Under current law, any eugenics compensation received by an individual would be counted as income in 

the month it was received and as resources thereafter for purposes 

of determining eligibility for Medicaid and SSI. S. 1698 would allow 

individuals who receive compensation, almost all of whom are poor 

and many of whom are developmentally disabled, to remain eligible 

for SSI and Medicaid despite receiving eugenics compensation. 

In the absence of S. 1698, eugenics compensation recipients 

would lose eligibility for both programs because the compensation 

would exceed income eligibility thresholds for the program as well 

as resource eligibility levels beyond the month of receipt. Many of 

the individuals receiving compensation are believed to be in nursing homes or receiving other forms of expensive long term care 

services. CBO expects that recipients will spend down the compensation funds quickly by paying for their care and that, on average, recipients will lose eligibility for about one year under current 

law. Therefore, spending for SSI and Medicaid would be expected 

to increase by the cost of benefits for about one year for each person compensated if S. 1698 was enacted. 

S. 1698 would affect individuals primarily in two states, North 

Carolina and Virginia. Based on information from several private 

sources involved in supporting those who had been involuntarily 

sterilized by state eugenics programs and from the North Carolina 

Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims, CBO estimates that S. 

1698 would affect a very small number of people in those states. 

Because North Carolina’s program ended in the early 1970s and 

Virginia’s ended just after World War II, most of the people who 

had been sterilized have passed away or are very elderly and difficult to locate. The North Carolina program has identified fewer 

than 250 people who qualify for payments under its program and 

Virginia has identified fewer than 20 people who qualify. In addition, those two state programs fixed the level of compensation such 

that recipients would only receive a share of a $10 million funding 

pool in North Carolina or receive $25,000 each in Virginia. 

Additional states that once had eugenics programs could establish similar compensation laws, but CBO estimates that fewer than 

half of those states will do so. CBO projects that the number of individuals that eventually would be identified and compensated in 

those states would be similar to the small number of people identified in Virginia, since the other state programs also ended just 

after World War II. Therefore, CBO estimates that the costs for 

any additional compensation programs would be minimal. In total, 

CBO estimates that enacting S. 1698 would increase direct spending by $5 million over the 2016–2025 period. 

Pay-As-You-Go considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. The legislation would not 

affect revenues. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR S. 1698, AS ORDERED REPORTED BY THE 

HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE ON DECEMBER 9, 2015 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2016– 

2020 

2016– 

2025 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE ON-BUDGET DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ................. 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 

Increase in long term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting S. 1698 would not increase net direct spending 

or on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1698 contains no 

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Rob Stewart; Impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: J’Nell Blanco Suchy; Impact 

on the private sector: Paige Piper-Bach. 

Estimate approved by: Holly Harvey, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with HEARING