Comment on FR Doc # E8-18869

COMMENT TO: DIRECTOR GORDON BURKE OFFICE OF GRANTS AND TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMS UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR FROM: CITIZEN D. JENKINS SUBJECT: RIN 1293-AA15 PRIORITY OF SERVICES FOR COVERED PERSONS DATE: 9/20/2008 IN RESPONSE TO PROPESED RULE This comment is in response to a request for comments concerning the proposed rule Priority of Services for Covered Persons. It is evident from past and present international conflicts that the need to recognize and pay respect to American military veterans is warranted. As indicated by the Department of Veterans Affairs, there are millions of military veterans in America which increases daily due to post 9/11 ventures overseas such as Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. With such a multitude of veterans returning to civilian life it is justifiable to review services for those veterans and their dependents and amend them where appropriate. After careful review of the proposed rule I would venture to identify an advantage and disadvantage to the Priority of Services for Covered Persons proposal. I would note an advantage of the proposed rule could include increased awareness, guidelines, and identification of easing transitional issues for military veterans and their dependents back into society. As a citizen I would be supportive of any attempt to alleviate the cultural shock of transitioning from military to civilian life. In addition, giving specific guidelines for military veteran workforce development service providers should assist with clarification as well as expedition of services to those in need. Often it is the case that attempting to access any governmental services can be not only time consuming and confusing, but difficult and frustrating as well. The process of accessing services is difficult partly due to intricacies of governing as well as the vastness of legality of our governmental system. Any attempt to narrow and clarify can only assist those military veterans and their dependents in there deserved quest for benefits from their country. As our 16th president Abraham Lincoln so elegantly stated in his second inaugural address in 1865, “With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the Nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations”. A disadvantage that could initially be noted is in the discriminatory nature of the language of providing services in a preferential manner to what the rule identifies as “covered persons”. As a nation we attempted to implement separate but equal language and treatment for everyone with the initiation of those Jim Crow Laws enacted from 1876 to 1965, which although assisted in the Civil Rights Movement, ultimately were rampant with blatant discrimination and ignorance. For our current purposes I would liken this “covered persons” rule proposal to another more recent and appropriate example such as with persons who have insurance verses those who do not. If a person should seek medical attention and is not insured, it is often the case that they will most likely not receive the benefit of immediate service due to their inability to pay for the services, whereas one who has health insurance will be given priority in the same situation because they have the ability to pay or are covered by their insurance company. This preferential treatment based upon health insurance status seems hardly fair, especially if the service required is a life threatening one such as with an organ transplant. It should be noted that our forefathers and fine Declaration of Independence clearly agrees with fairness and equality as when it proclaims that “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The proposed rule hints at not being very concerned with those persons who are for some unidentified reason not “covered” as evidenced by its emphasizing “Section 1010.200 provides that covered persons receive access to the service or resource earlier in time than non-covered persons; or if the service or resource is limited, covered persons receive access to the service or resource instead of or before non-covered persons” (p. 48087). Given the fact that military veterans are of the same race, namely the human race, of their civilian counterparts it is the case that when attempting to propose a rule that effects taxpayers, military personnel, and civilian persons alike further investigation into any discriminative natures should be scrutinized “instead of” ignored. In conclusion I wish to express my gratitude at the opportunity to be able to comment on the proposed rule Priority of Service for Covered Persons. It is with the utmost respect that I request my points be taken into their proper context and consideration by those who obviously and professionally put much time and effort into drafting such a proposal. I am truly honored to be afforded the occasion to provide my support for this rule and as a public servant can only hope that I have assisted in some form in this rules implementation. Respectfully Submitted, D. Jenkins