The new legislation, although more cleverly crafted, is the same in many ways as the legislation the industry sought in 1974, which the 93^rd Congress, not blinded by their own lust for power and money, was able to recognize would only legitimize the predatory nature of this industry. After 25 years, with HUD's complicity and aided by the purposeful silence of most of the members of the COSAA organization and its leadership, the industry finally succeeded in getting legislation passed. In addition to providing to this industry, the right to prey upon those least able to defend themselves against invasion of the most inestimable rights, it provides to the industry, government participation in quelling their quarry.

In the past, with HUD's and far too many State Approved Administrations complicity, the industry has maximized its profit margins by only complying with the federal standards to the extent that they determined was acceptable to them, which regardless of HUD's and those SAA's affirmative conduct towards such illegal activities, was nevertheless illegal. With the new legislation, the standards will now be brought into compliance with whatever contrived industry practice or method the industry determines serves its own self-interest. This industry has a long and notorious history of cutting production costs, regardless of the consequences to the consumers of its product. Whenever they find another cost effective and innovative construction technique, better known as ways to cut corners, the legislation provides the statutory support for the standards to be brought into compliance with each such contrived technique. This procedure of law provides no measure to limit what and how much can be sacrificed to assure that production costs are kept at the level the manufacturers find acceptable. In short, with the passage of this legislation, the regulator and the regulated will soon become undistinguishable from one another, which it is already difficult to distinguish in many cases, since their objectives as per the 106th Congress, are now the same. When the objectives of the regulated and the regulator are the same, with no base criteria to control what and how the objective is accomplished, there is no legitimate system of checks and balances, which is a vital part of our form of government. This slight of hand or procedure of law dilutes 42 USC 5409, "prohibited acts". It short, it will be difficult for anyone to determine when and if the manufacturers and their agents are violating any part of 42 USC 5409, since the standards will always be seeking to be in compliance with whatever contrived practice or method the industry comes up with to reduce their production costs.

The enumerated purposes:

(a)	From whom are they going to defend the quality, durability, safety, and affordability of this merchandise?
(b)	The terms quality, durability, and safety in this enumerated purpose are ambiguous because of the term "affordable". According to Congress, this legislation's singular public purpose is to assure the public, which includes all potential purchasers of manufactured homes, that nothing stands as an obstacle to the production of cheaply designed and constructed merchandise, which should not be confused with the cost to the public of this cheaply designed and constructed merchandise.
(c)	The term "affordability" is in itself ambiguous; simply put, it has no measure since it means something different to each individual. This is why manufactured home representatives urged Congress to define this term to mean to the consumers of manufactured housing and with aid of some consumer representatives treading in unfamiliar shark infested waters; the industry repelled all such efforts. The industry of course wanted this term to remain ambiguous, thereby making it subject to the determination of industry dominated consensus committee as to how affordability will be achieved. Since this Act is now clearly a housing law and not a "consumer protection law", diluting or eliminating anything that is related to a purpose that no longer exists in this legislation, which was consumer protections, can only achieve affordability as it relates to the new purposes for this legislation.
(d)	According to some of the industry's more influential groups, "affordability" means that people have the right to purchase unsafe, incomplete, cheap products in exchange for a lower purchase price, regardless of the danger that such product poses to innocent people given no choice in another's decision to use in the public domain, unsafe cheap merchandise. [No. 94-2307. FLORIDA MANUFACTURED HOUSING ASSOCIATION, INC., Homes of Merit, Inc., Jacobsen Manufacturing, Inc., and Nobility Homes, Inc., Petitioners, v. Henry G. CISNEROS, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Respondent. June 12, 1995.]

(a)	Congress in their finding elevated the importance of manufactured housing above all other types of housing. This combined with this purpose provides HUD with the authority to bully other government and private institutions into promoting above all other types of housing, manufactured homes to those seeking information on purchasing a home.
(b)	This as well is intended to allow HUD to remove whatever regulatory barrier stands in the way of the industry's production and introduction into commerce, of cheaply designed and constructed manufactured homes. The intent of regulation and enforcement is to protect the public health and welfare from industries, such as the manufactured housing industry, which place their own selfish endeavors ahead of the public's safety. This legislation has no purpose towards protecting the public safety.
(c)	Efforts by the MHI and MHARR to use their legislation to further dilute the legitimate consumer protections provided within the provisions of the original legislation (not to be confused with HUD's illegal regulations in regards to consumer protections) have already begun.

(a)	"Extent" when used without a point of reference, which was removed by removing the term "maximum" which proceeded "extent" in the original legislation, cannot be measured, and therefore, it is ambiguous. This was done to permit safety, durability, and quality to be lowered to whatever level satisfies the singular public need [enumerated purpose (8)] for cheaply designed and constructed manufactured homes.
(b)	The term "safety" was also removed from Congress's reason for establishing these standards, which is consistent with the absence of the term "safety" throughout section 604 as it relates to what the industry dominated consensus committee will submit to the Secretary for establishment as what will be by title only, and not composition, "Manufactured Home Construction and Safety Standards".
(c)	This is as well consistent with the elimination of the requirement for the Secretary to consult with the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) before establishing any "federal construction standard".
(d)	This is consistent with the enumerated purposes of this chapter, in which Congress has by exclusion, eliminated that public's need for safe, durable, and quality manufactured housing.
(e)	This is consistent with Gus Bauman; the MHI General Counsel's June 6, 2001 letter in which he infers that the Act, which only had the purpose of "saving lives and property", is now "clearly a housing law".
(f)	"Practical" is ambiguous, which means that its interpretation will be whatever serves the new singular public interest in having available to them, a source of cheaply designed and constructed manufactured housing.

(a)	An innovative way of legitimizing that this industry sacrifices safety, durability, and quality whenever it finds a new innovative construction technique to disguise such sacrifices, thereby enhancing its already exorbitant profit margin.
(b)	This purpose is also intended to make appear legitimate, HUD's clearly unconstitutional abuse of power under 24 CFR 3282.14.

(a)	This was a slick way of narrowing the meaning of "protect" to prevent the inclusion by way of its doctrinal meaning, severe personal injury and death (Safety). This purpose is better described as a stipulative definition.
(b)	This ensures that no connection can be made between the public, which includes all future purchasers of manufactured homes.
(c)	This dilutes the consumers right to redress after they purchase cheaply designed and constructed manufactured homes by limiting their right to redress for personal injuries and the amount of insurance costs and property damages to its affect on the cost to those who have not yet purchased there very own poorly designed and constructed manufactured home [enumerated purpose (8)].
(d)	This is consistent with the elimination of the term "safety" from Congress's purpose for establishing construction standards for this product and the requirement for the Secretary to consult with the CPSC before establishing any standard.

(a)	It will be necessary for sometime for the consensus committee to revise and interpret the current construction and safety standards. As far as development goes, Congress already specified that these standards are to be solely for the purpose of the construction of manufactured homes, and nothing else.
(b)	There is no hope that this process can be balanced, and it is unlikely that a heavily industry controlled Congress will ever provide sufficient funding under the new appropriations clause to adequately fund the technical assistance, intended to create the illusion that the consumer representatives are being provided what is necessary to adequately balance this consensus development process. The industry has already used their political influence with certain influential members of Congress to shut down the first effort to raise label fees needed to provide adequate funding to implement and carry out the 2000 amendment to the Act.
(c)	HUD has total power to determine who will be appointed to the consensus committee, and given HUD's history and COSAA's recent history of excluding consumer representatives who oppose with firmness, their affirmative conduct towards this industry, it is an astronomical improbability that this committee will resemble anything that can be defined under any legitimate principal, as balanced. There is more than sufficient history for the HUD/Industry coalition to reasonably conclude that the Secretary will assure industry dominance on this committee to protect HUD's own self-serving political interests.

(a)	This is a pipe dream and this amendment went out of its way to dilute any mechanism or provision that could have, if carried out as the 93rd Congress had intended, could have provided for such a system.
(b)	The tools did exist before the passage of the 2000 amendment, to accomplish uniform and effective enforcement. Government officers and employees have purposely subverted the federal statutes and therefore, the Constitution of the United States, to shield this industry from its legal obligations. In exchange, many have gone on after leaving government service to lucrative jobs within the industry, to lucrative jobs in businesses that provide services to this industry or to other private endeavors that are heavily funded by this industry.
(c)	New definitions were added to the legislation related to this purpose, but Congress in an unprecedented move never bothered to use these terms they provided meanings for, within the statutory authorities provided to implement and carry out the legislation. It is doubtful if HUD will be able to fund these activities unless the courts are willing to recognize the definitions themselves as the statutory authority to implement and carryout the legislation. Under this system of law, HUD would not need to waste time with the rest of the legislation since they could make up whatever they wanted to implement and carry out the definitions of the legislation; oops, forgot, they already ignore what the rest of the legislation says. It will be much simpler for HUD, as is the past and current practice, to simply let the manufacturers continue the practice of making their judges of compliance dependent on their will alone for their pay and the amount of their pay.
(d)	And once again, enumerated purpose (8) limits enforcement activities to only those that do not hinder the production of cheap manufactured homes and thereby reduce the public's access to poorly designed and constructed manufactured homes.
(e)	No reasonable person can conclude that any legitimate changes will be made, at least to the benefit of the consumers of this product, to HUD's pre-existing ineffective system of enforcement, which usurps the Attorney Generals authority under this chapter, and is primarily designed to provide protection to the manufacturers from prosecution for their civil and potentially criminal activities under Title 42, Chapter 70.

(a)

This has already been discussed throughout the other enumerated purposes. The last part of this sentence is nothing more than a low-level summary of enumerated purpose (1) through (7), which are all controlled in some manner by the first part of enumerated purpose (8).

(b)

As Gus Bauman, the MHI general counsel pointed out in his June 6, 2001 letter; they are now just like all of the rest of the affordable housing. No, they are not because simply put, the other types of affordable housing did not require the federal magisterial congress to legislate them as such housing, but most importantly, the other types of affordable housing do not require construction standards that place production "costs" above the public's interest in, and need for safety, durability, and quality, to be considered affordable housing.

Installation standards and dispute resolution.

In short, neither of these two new contrived notions has any affect on any State currently approved as an SAA (35 of the 50 States) and this is designed to give the illusion that these never existed and they did.

Amendments to Section 623.

Installation program
"With respect to any State plan submitted on or after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000"

Dispute Resolution
"With respect to any State plan submitted on or after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000"

While it is true that a provision was added to 42 USC 5409 to create the illusion that installation programs would be enforceable under federal law, this amendment to 42 USC 5409 is just that, an illusion.

42 USC 5409
"After the expiration of the period specified in section 605(c)(2)(B), fail to comply with the requirements for the installation program required by section 605 in any State that has not adopted and implemented a State installation program".

605(c)(2)(B)
(B) Beginning on the expiration of the 5-year period described in paragraph (1)

Without going into a lengthy analysis, the only person who can fail to comply with the requirements for an installation program under section 605 in any State on or after the expiration of the 5-year period beginning on the date of enactment of the Manufactured Housing Improvement Act of 2000, which has not established and implemented a State installation program is the Secretary of Housing. Unless the laws have been changed, the Secretary is not accountable to the American people for his failures to carry out his duties.

There is no statutory authority provided under section 605 for the federal enforcement of the model installation standards or the regulations for the installation program, promulgated pursuant to section 605. Under this chapter, only standards and regulations promulgated pursuant to section 604 are enforceable under federal law.

This is consistent with the change to the National Preemption clause under section 604, which reserves to the State, the right to establish and enforce installation standards. He of course can show up, establish, and implement his installation program in any State that does not have an installation program, but he has no statutory authority to require or order any manufacturer, retailer, or installer to assent to his installation program.

The Secretary is not authorized to expend any funds on any consensus committee activities related to promulgating standards and regulations under section 605.

The same is true for the voluntary dispute resolution, lots of hot air, and no teeth. There is no statutory authority under the "Mobile Home Act" to promulgate any regulations for a dispute resolution program, nor is the Secretary authorized to expend any funds for this purpose. There is no federal statutory authority to enforce the findings for such a process, and it is unlikely that such dispute resolution finding against any person, who simply chose not to participate, would be admissible in court of law because of a pesky little thing called "due process rights". This is true in any State that does not provide for such a process under State law. Just as with the installation program, the Secretary has no statutory authority to require or order any person to assent to his dispute resolution program or it's finding, thereby making such process mute because of the previously stated reasons. There should be no need for disputes; the manufacturer remains responsible, along with all of their agents, to the first purchaser, for any construction or safety defects.

What does this legislation mean to the consumers of manufactured housing, nothing but a degradation, in the safety, quality, and durability of this pretend to be affordable housing, adding at an accelerated rate even more names to an already long list of victims and an even louder rendition of the same old song ("We Want to Help, but We Can't") and dance ("The Hokey Pokey") from this industry, HUD, and from far to many of the State Administrative Authorities.

Ironically, in spite of their assertion to the contrary, in their efforts to divert the purpose away from consumer protection and make it affordable housing legislation, they have weakened preemption.

John Taylor
Founder - "The American Internet Society of Manufactured Home Owners"