PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Housing and Community Opportunity.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 6, 1999
State Occupancy Standards Affirmation Act of 1999 - Amends the Quality Housing and Work Responsibility Act of 1998 to provide that: (1) a State standard shall be considered reasonable for purposes of determining familial status discrimination; and (2) the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, in the absence of a State standard, shall take no action respecting a two-person per bedroom standard established by a housing provider. Defines "occupancy standard."
People & committees
Rep. McCollum, Bill [R-FL-8] · R–FL
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 Housing and Community Opportunity.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E61-62)
Referred to the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services.
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: Aug 20, 2025. 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.176 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.176 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.176 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.176 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.