89–006 

1 ‘‘The WWII Home Front.’’ National Parks Service. Accessed August 30, 2018. https:// 

www.nps.gov/articles/the-wwii-home-front.htm. 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–998 

TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO ANNUALLY DESIGNATE 

AT LEAST ONE CITY IN THE UNITED STATES AS AN ‘‘AMERICAN WORLD 

WAR II HERITAGE CITY’’, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

OCTOBER 30, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 6118] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 6118) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to annually 

designate at least one city in the United States as an ‘‘American 

World War II Heritage City’’, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and 

recommend that the bill do pass. 

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

The purpose of H.R. 6118 is to direct the Secretary of the Interior 

to annually designate at least one city in the United States as an 

‘‘American World War II Heritage City’’. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

On December 7, 1941, military forces of the Empire of Japan attacked the U.S. Naval Fleet and ground bases at Pearl Harbor in 

Hawaii.1 On December 8, 1941, one day after what President Roosevelt referred to as, ‘‘a date which will live in infamy,’’ the United 

States declared war against the Empire of Japan.2 Three days 

later, on December 11, 1941, Japan’s ally, Germany, declared war 

on the United States.3 Sixteen million Americans, mostly young 

2 

4 Id. 

5 Id. 

6 Id. 

7 Id. 

8 ‘‘Meet America’s World War II City.’’ City of Wilmington, NC. Accessed August 30, 2018. 

https://www.wilmingtonnc.gov/departments/community-services/world-war-ii-city. 9 Id. 

10 Id. 11 Id. 12 ‘‘The WWII Home Front.’’ National Parks Service. Accessed August 30, 2018. https:// 

www.nps.gov/articles/the-wwii-home-front.htm. 13 Id. 

working-age men, served in the military during World War II, out 

of an overall United States population of 113 million.4

While an unprecedented number of Americans served in World 

War II, the country drastically increased its war production on the 

home front, serving not only the needs of the armed forces of the 

United States but her allies as well—in what President Franklin 

Roosevelt called ‘‘The Arsenal of Democracy.’’ 5 The combination of 

millions serving in the military, during a period of necessary and 

drastic increases in production, led to significant social changes on 

the American home front.6

The World War II period resulted in the largest number of people 

migrating within the United States in the history of the country. 

Individuals and families relocated to industrial centers for good 

paying jobs out of a sense of patriotic duty. Many industrial centers 

became ‘‘boomtowns,’’ growing at phenomenal rates. One example, 

the City of Richmond, California, grew from a population of under 

24,000 to over 100,000 during the war.7

Another boomtown was the City of Wilmington, North Carolina. 

During World War II, Wilmington was called ‘‘The Defense Capital 

of the State.’’ 8 Wilmington’s largest employer, the North Carolina 

Shipbuilding Company, constructed 243 cargo vessels.9 Wilmington 

was also home to many strategic defense industries, including fertilizer plants, pulpwood and creosote factories, dairies, and concrete 

floating drydock manufacturing. Wilmington was also the site of 

the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad headquarters and a P–47 fighter 

plane training area.10 The City and its surrounding area hosted 

training for all five military branches, and the City’s population 

more than doubled with the influx of military personnel, forcing everyone to cope with a strain on housing, schools, transportation, 

the food supply, medical and social services.11

Workers faced many challenges, as working conditions were difficult and dangerous. Between the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 and the D-Day Invasion of Europe in June 1944, there 

were more home-front industrial casualties than military casualties. The high number of industrial casualties led to improved work 

place safety and regulations.12

In addition to home-front workers, everyone was expected to be 

an active participant in the war effort. Rationing was a way of life 

as twenty commodities were rationed, and people were asked to, 

‘‘Use it up—Wear it out—Make it do—or Do without.’’ 13 Materials 

vital to the war effort were collected, often by youth groups, and 

recycled. Many Americans supported the war effort by purchasing 

war bonds. Women replaced men in sports leagues, orchestras, and 

community institutions. Americans grew 60% of the produce they 

3 

14 Id. 15 Id. 16Public Law 106–352 17 Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historical Park. Accessed September 30, 

2018. https://www.nps.gov/rori/learn/historyculture/places.htm. 

consumed in Victory Gardens.14 The war effort on the United 

States home front was a total effort.15

In recognition of the industrial, governmental, and citizen efforts 

that eventually led the United States to victory in World War II, 

Congress designated the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home 

Front National Historical Park in October 2000.16 The Park includes sites, structures, and areas of Richmond, California, that are 

associated with the home-front efforts. Richmond, California, was 

chosen as the site for this National Historical Park because of the 

City’s many surviving sites and structures that help tell the diverse stories of the home front.17

H.R. 6118 would provide further commemoration of the World 

War II home-front efforts by requiring the Secretary of the Interior 

to designate at least one city in the United States each year as an 

‘‘American World War II Heritage City.’’ The bill requires that Wilmington, North Carolina, be the first city to receive such a designation. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 6118 was introduced on June 14, 2018, by Congressman 

David Rouzer (R–NC). The bill was referred to the Committee on 

Natural Resources and within the Committee, to the Subcommittee 

on Federal Lands. The Subcommittee held a hearing on the bill on 

September 6, 2018. On September 26, 2018, the Natural Resources 

Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments were offered, and 

the bill was ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by unanimous consent. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET

ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

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

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

4 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, October 24, 2018. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, 

Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 6118, a bill to direct the 

Secretary of the Interior to annually designate at least one city in 

the United States as an ‘‘American World War II Heritage City,’’ 

and for other purposes. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Jacob Fabian. 

Sincerely, 

MARK P. HADLEY

(For Keith Hall, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 6118—A bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to annually 

designate at least one city in the United States as an ‘‘American 

World War II Heritage City,’’ and for other purposes 

H.R. 6118 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to designate 

at least one city in the United States annually as an American 

World War II Heritage City. That designation would be based on 

the city’s contributions to the war and its effort to preserve the history of its contributions during the war. The bill would designate 

Wilmington, North Carolina, as the first American World War II 

Heritage City. 

Using information from the National Park Service, CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 6118 would have an insignificant 

cost in each year and cost about $1 million over the 2019–2023 period; such spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Those costs include developing an application and 

selection process, maintaining a website, and consulting with the 

Smithsonian Institution or the National Trust for Historic Preservation to help determine the designation criteria and make the annual city selection. 

Enacting H.R. 6118 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 6118 would not increase net 

direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2029. 

H.R. 6118 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Jacob Fabian. The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to direct the Secretary of the Interior to annually designate at least one city in the United States as an ‘‘American World 

War II Heritage City’’. 

5 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5

Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any directed 

rule makings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

If enacted, this bill would make no changes to existing law. 

Æ