This bill requires the Secretary of Transportation, acting through the Maritime Administration, to develop and implement a comprehensive campus modernization plan for the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA). The plan must be informed by prior industry and National Academy work and is intended to bring century-old facilities up to modern standards for maritime training, physical readiness, and academic instruction.
The proposal frames the modernization as a national-security and workforce issue: the Academy supplies licensed, service-obligated mariners who support commercial shipping and the Navy’s strategic sealift capacity. By directing a campus-wide program and encouraging streamlined delivery methods, the bill signals a sustained federal commitment to preserve the Academy as an operational training center and employer pipeline for the maritime sector.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new statutory section directing the Maritime Administration to design and execute a campus-wide modernization of USMMA, setting program objectives and a list of facility and utility upgrades. It directs the agency to use expedited delivery methods where practicable and to pursue a federal construction agent to manage the work.
Who It Affects
Midshipmen and Academy faculty/staff, the Maritime Administration and Department of Transportation, the Navy’s Strategic Sealift Officer pipeline, maritime employers who hire graduates, construction and design contractors, and the local Shoreham-by-the-Sea/New York-area community that supports the Academy.
Why It Matters
The bill converts long-recognized facility needs into a statutory modernization program, ties planning and execution to agency responsibility, and channels dedicated maritime trust-fund money toward campus infrastructure—establishing a model for funding and delivering major upgrades at a federal service academy.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new, standalone statutory authority requiring the Maritime Administration to carry out a campus modernization program at USMMA. The statutory language lays out priorities for training, safety, accessibility, and recruiting, and it directs the agency to base the plan on prior analyses produced by industry and the National Academy.
Practically speaking, the provision forces a comprehensive review of the campus with the goal of replacing or upgrading facilities that no longer meet modern training needs.
The modernization concept in the statute ties together three operational streams: academic and simulation spaces (for license exam and STCW compliance), waterfront and seamanship infrastructure (including piers and waterfront support), and campus utilities (power, sewer, stormwater, potable water and dedicated fire-suppression feeds). The bill also specifically calls for athletic, housing, visitor, and security facilities to support recruitment, retention, and day-to-day operations.
Those inclusions make the plan multi-disciplinary: it is simultaneously an educational upgrade, a waterfront engineering project, and a utilities rehabilitation program.On delivery, the statute emphasizes keeping the Academy functioning throughout construction, and it urges the agency to pursue streamlined contracting approaches—design-build methods and coordination with a federal construction agent named under recent defense procurement authorities. The combination of requirements—detailed facility lists plus a mandate for uninterrupted operations—creates a project that must be phased tightly and coordinated across education, operations, engineering, and procurement teams.Finally, the bill identifies the Maritime Security Trust Fund as the source of phased federal funding for the program over a defined multi‑year window and asks the agency to provide accountability and milestone oversight as it executes the plan.
By placing the program squarely under statutory direction and an explicit funding stream, the bill changes a program that has been an administrative priority into a defined legislative obligation for the Maritime Administration and DOT.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill directs the Secretary to develop and begin implementing the Campus Modernization Plan within 180 days of enactment and adds a new section (51329) to chapter 513 of title 46, U.S. Code.
It authorizes $1,020,000,000 to be appropriated from the Maritime Security Trust Fund for phased work at USMMA across fiscal years 2026–2035.
Of the total, $54,000,000 is reserved for fiscal year 2026 for design and planning (to develop a design-build plan), and $107,333,333 is authorized for each fiscal year 2026 through 2035 for construction and contingency.
The plan must include specific facility projects such as STCW applications laboratories, a SOLAS (Safety Of Life At Sea) training pool, engineering powerplant labs, enhanced waterfront infrastructure including a new pier, athletics facilities suitable for both sexes, senior staff/faculty housing, a visitor center and main security office, parking, campus IT upgrades, and full utility system rehabilitations.
The statute requires the Academy to remain fully operational during modernization and directs the Administrator to seek an agreement with a Federal construction agent consistent with section 3515(d)(3) of the FY2023 NDAA.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Congressional findings on USMMA mission and facilities
The bill opens with findings that frame USMMA as a critical train ing source for service‑obligated licensed merchant mariners and a contributor to the Navy’s Strategic Sealift Officer program, and it highlights that most campus facilities date to the Academy’s founding and need modernization. Those findings are not binding law but set legislative intent: they justify prioritizing national-security and workforce considerations over purely local or academic priorities when the Maritime Administration designs the program.
Policy preferences for pace, plan sources, and delivery
This section signals Congressional expectations: it directs the agency to use the Maritime Security Infrastructure Council’s Full Speed Ahead Plan where practicable, to follow National Academy recommendations, to prioritize design‑build contracting to speed delivery and cut costs, and to provide accountability for milestones. While not an enforceable command, this guidance will shape the agency’s priorities, procurement choices, and stakeholder engagement during planning.
Develop and begin implementation of a Campus Modernization Plan
The core statutory hook requires the Secretary to develop and begin to implement a comprehensive Campus Modernization Plan for USMMA. The text compels the Maritime Administration to produce a campus‑wide modernization road map and to move past planning into initial execution—making the obligation both planning and delivery oriented rather than advisory.
Program objectives and required project inclusions
Subsection (b) lists the program’s objectives—modern learning environments, access to facilities to pass Coast Guard licensing exams, physical‑readiness facilities, diversity‑attraction features, and industry engagement spaces—creating measurable program priorities rather than vague goals. Subsection (c) enumerates concrete facilities and systems the plan must address (simulation/STCW labs, SOLAS pool, engine labs, waterfront/pier, housing, IT upgrades, and utility retrofits, among others). That laundry list functions as both a planning checklist and a constraint: omitted projects will be harder to justify later as they fall outside the statutory scope.
Operational continuity and use of a Federal construction agent
The statute requires the Academy to remain fully operational for the duration of the modernization program, which imposes sequencing and staging constraints on construction. It also instructs the Administrator to seek an agreement with a Federal construction agent under FY2023 NDAA authorities—an approach designed to centralize project delivery and leverage federal construction expertise but one that will require coordination between agencies and may alter procurement routes and risk allocation compared with standard DOT contracting.
Funding mechanism and appropriation structure
The bill authorizes phased appropriations from the Maritime Security Trust Fund for fiscal years 2026–2035 and sets aside initial design funds and yearly construction/contingency allocations. The statutory link to a trust fund earmarks a dedicated revenue stream, which streamlines the authorization‑to‑appropriation relationship but also limits flexibility because those dollars would otherwise support other maritime‑security programs administered from the same fund.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Midshipmen and prospective cadets — they will gain modern simulation labs, waterfront training assets, physical‑fitness facilities, and improved dormitory and campus life amenities that align training with licensure requirements and contemporary academic standards.
- Maritime Administration and Department of Transportation — the bill gives them statutory authority, a defined program, and a dedicated funding source to execute long‑deferred capital projects that advance mission readiness.
- U.S. Navy and national defense planners — modernized training capacity strengthens the pipeline for Strategic Sealift Officers and the pool of service‑obligated mariners needed during contingencies.
- Maritime industry and employers — improved facilities and formal industry engagement spaces should support continuing education, easier recruiting of licensed mariners, and a workforce better prepared for current commercial vessel requirements.
- Local economy and construction sector — a multi‑year, multi‑site modernization program creates sustained construction, design, and professional services demand in the region.
Who Bears the Cost
- Maritime Security Trust Fund priorities — dedicating over $1 billion to campus work diverts trust‑fund resources from other maritime programs (vessel financing, port projects, or other security initiatives) and reduces the fund’s flexibility.
- Maritime Administration and DOT program managers — they inherit program management, oversight, contracting, and milestone responsibilities without explicit new administrative staffing or appropriations for management.
- Construction contractors and designers — accelerated design‑build expectations and the requirement to maintain Academy operations raise scheduling complexity and may compress competitive timelines or increase risk pricing.
- USMMA operations and staff — while the law requires the Academy to remain operational, staff and midshipmen will absorb the logistics, safety controls, and programmatic disruptions that come with staged campus construction.
- Future Academy budget holders — upgraded facilities carry longer‑term maintenance, lifecycle, and operating costs that the Academy and Maritime Administration will need to fund after construction completes.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus stewardship: Congress directs a rapid, comprehensive modernization of a mission‑critical academy and ties it to a dedicated funding source, but executing an accelerated, campus‑wide construction program while keeping the Academy fully operational risks higher costs, reduced oversight, and regulatory delays—forcing tradeoffs between urgent readiness needs and prudent project management and fiscal discipline.
The bill bundles broad modernization goals, a prescriptive list of facility needs, and a multi‑year funding authorization into a single statutory duty. That combination creates practical tensions: the scope is large (academic, waterfront, and utility systems), but the statute sets an aggressive expectation for rapid planning and delivery.
Phasing work to keep the Academy fully operational will complicate sequencing and likely increase unit costs compared with a short‑term shutdown, particularly for major utility replacements and waterfront pier construction. Design‑build and a Federal construction agent can speed delivery but reduce traditional competitive checks and require specialized oversight to avoid cost or quality tradeoffs.
The choice of funding source—earmarking the Maritime Security Trust Fund—clarifies pay‑for but also creates opportunity costs within maritime priorities. The fund traditionally backs a range of maritime security programs; redirecting a sizable tranche to campus infrastructure may provoke prioritization decisions elsewhere in the maritime portfolio.
Finally, implementation will collide with non‑budget constraints: environmental reviews, coastal permits, historic‑preservation obligations for older campus buildings, and ADA/compliance upgrades can trigger delays and unforeseen costs, and the statute provides little procedural scaffolding for resolving those regulatory hurdles within its delivery timeline.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.