PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jul 7, 2015
Dine College Act of 2015
Authorizes Dine College to receive federal funding and resources for its operation, improvement, and growth, including to:
provide higher education programs and vocational and technical education for citizens of the Navajo Nation and others;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
preserve and protect the Navajo language, philosophy, and culture for citizens of the Navajo Nation and others;
provide Navajo communities and people with employment and training opportunities;
provide economic development and community outreach for Navajo communities and people; and
provide a safe learning, working, and living environment for students, employees, and the public.
Authorizes appropriations to Dine College to pay for its operation and maintenance. Allows such funds to be treated as non-federal, private funds for purposes of any provision of federal law that requires that non-federal or private funds of the College be used in a project for a specific purpose. Directs the Department of the Interior to fund the operation and maintenance of the College separately from tribal colleges and universities recognized and funded by the Tribally Controlled College or University Assistance Act of 1978.
Directs: (1) an inventory prepared by the College identifying repairs, alterations, and renovations to facilities required to meet health and safety standards and other factors to be submitted to Interior by January 31, 2016; (2) Interior to conduct a detailed survey of all capital projects and facility needs of the College and to report to specified congressional committees by October 31, 2016; and (3) Interior to use the College's inventory as baseline data to inform the survey. Authorizes the College to use funds provided under this Act to undertake any renovations and repairs to the infrastructure of the College identified in the survey.
People & committees
Rep. Kirkpatrick, Ann [D-AZ-1] · D–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2958 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2958 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2958 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2958 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.