"IN THE KNOW": workforce investment act "in the know"

"IN THE KNOW": workforce investment act "in the know"

quality assurance will be observing

Resolutions Passed at the Nueces County Democratic Party ConventionMarch 25, 2006
FREE QUALITY EDUCATION FROM PRE-K THROUGH COLLEGE
WHEREAS, education is a basic human right; and WHEREAS, people with a quality education are less likely to be marginalized by society; and WHEREAS, those with a quality education are more likely to participate in local and national elections; and WHEREAS, the average yearly wage for an individual with a bachelor’s degree is 3 times that of a non-degreed person; and WHEREAS, draining education funds to furnish vouchers for private education will undermine improvements needed in public schools; and WHEREAS, a universal, voluntary, full-day pre-kindergarten for ages 3-5 years will better prepare children for success in school, as well as ease the cost of quality child care for the working poor; and WHEREAS, the total cost of one year’s college tuition for each of the 12 million students now enrolled in state-supported colleges is $48 billion, which is less that one third of the recent tax cuts bestowed upon our wealthiest citizens; and WHEREAS, Congress has passed a Defense spending bill providing &8.9 billion to fund the National Defense system which has not been proven to work; therefore, be it RESOLVED, that the United States should regard education as just as important to our society as national defense; and be it furtherRESOLVED, that quality education from pre-K through College be provided to all without regard to financial status.

nanotechnology wia grants

The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
Bill 9 of 1000
GPO's PDF Display
Congressional Record References
Bill Summary & Status
Printer Friendly Display - 17,809 bytes.[Help]
Sectoral Market Assessment for Regional Training Enhancement and Revitalization Act (Introduced in Senate)
S 1163 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1163
To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide for strategic sectoral skills gap assessments, strategic skills gap action plans, and strategic training capacity enhancement seed grants, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
June 6, 2005
Ms. CANTWELL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
A BILL
To amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide for strategic sectoral skills gap assessments, strategic skills gap action plans, and strategic training capacity enhancement seed grants, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Sectoral Market Assessment for Regional Training Enhancement and Revitalization Act' .
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) More than 1/3 of the Nation's current workforce lacks the basic skills necessary to succeed in today's labor market.
(2) Globalization of the economy is leading to losses of jobs in key domestic industries, as well as challenges to competitiveness and productivity in other domestic industries.
(3) To remain economically vital and competitive, the Nation must invest in generating jobs and train a workforce skilled enough to contribute productively to the United States economy.
(4) Strategic planning that links workforce development and economic development, and the targeting of resources to industries that can build strong regional economies and create jobs with living wages for workers, need to be priorities for the workforce investment system.
(5) States and local workforce investment boards can play lead roles in guiding a more strategic process for achieving economic growth through workforce development.
SEC. 3. SKILLS GAP CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.
Subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.) is amended--
(1) by redesignating section 137 as section 138; and
(2) by inserting after section 136 the following:
`SEC. 137. SKILLS GAP CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT GRANTS.
`(a) Purposes- The purposes of this section are--
`(1) to assist States and local boards in better focusing funds provided under this subtitle on activities and programs that address labor shortages and meet the emerging demand for skills in high-quality jobs in area industries;
`(2) to enhance the efficiency of the one-stop delivery systems and providers of training services;
`(3) to establish and improve partnerships between local boards, industry sectors, economic development agencies, providers of training services (including secondary schools, postsecondary educational institutions, community-based organizations, business associations, and providers of joint labor-management programs), providers of supportive services, and other related public and private entities;
`(4) to strengthen integration of workforce development strategies and economic development strategies in States, local areas, and labor markets;
`(5) to retain vital industries in the local areas and regions involved, avoid dislocation of workers, and strengthen the competitiveness of key industries; and
`(6) to encourage the development of career ladders and advancement efforts in local industries.
`(b) Definitions- In this section:
`(1) CONSORTIUM- The term `consortium' means a consortium of local boards, established as described in subsection (d)(3).
`(2) REGION- The term `region' means 2 or more local areas that comprise a common labor market for an industry sector or group of related occupations.
`(3) TRAINING SERVICES- The term `training services' means services described in section 134(d)(4).
`(c) Grants to States-
`(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall make grants to States, to enable the States to assist local boards and consortia in carrying out the activities described in subsection (e).
`(2) FORMULA-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall make the grants in accordance with the formula used to make grants to States under section 132(b)(1)(B) (other than clause (iv)), subject to subparagraph (B).
`(B) SMALL STATE MINIMUM ALLOTMENT- The Secretary shall ensure that no State shall receive an allotment under this paragraph for a fiscal year that is less than 1/2 of 1 percent of the funds made available to carry out this section for that fiscal year.
`(d) Grants to Local Boards-
`(1) IN GENERAL- A State that receives a grant under subsection (c)--
`(A) shall use the funds made available through the grant to make grants to local boards and consortia to carry out the activities described in subsection (e); and
`(B) may use not more than 15 percent of the funds made available through the grant, at the election of the State, to prepare strategic sectoral skills gap assessments, as described in subsection (e)(2), in the local areas or regions involved, or to provide technical assistance to local boards, consortia, or partnerships described in subsection (e)(3).
`(2) CONSIDERATION- In making the grants, the State may take into account the size of the workforce in each local area or region.
`(3) CONSORTIA- States shall encourage local boards to aggregate, to the maximum extent practicable, into consortia representing regions, for purposes of carrying out activities described in subsection (e). Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require local boards to aggregate into such consortia.
`(4) APPLICATIONS- To be eligible to receive a grant under this section, a local board or consortium shall submit an application to the State, at such time and in such manner as the State may require, containing--
`(A) information identifying the members of the partnership described in subsection (e)(3) that will carry out the activities described in subsection (e); and
`(B) an assurance that the board or consortium will use, or ensure that the partnership uses, the funds to carry out the activities described in subsection (e).
`(e) Use of Funds-
`(1) IN GENERAL- A local board or consortium that receives a grant under this section--
`(A) shall ensure that the partnership described in paragraph (3) uses the funds made available through the grant to--
`(i) prepare a strategic sectoral skills gap assessment, as described in paragraph (2), unless the State elects to prepare the assessment;
`(ii) develop a strategic skills gap action plan, as described in paragraph (4); and
`(iii) provide strategic training capacity enhancement seed grants to providers of training services specified in subsection (a)(3), one-stop operators, and other appropriate intermediaries, as described in paragraph (5); and
`(B) may use funds made available through the grant to ensure that activities carried out under this subtitle are carried out in accordance with the strategic skills gap action plan.
`(2) STRATEGIC SECTORAL SKILLS GAP ASSESSMENT-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subparagraph (E), the local board or consortium (or, at the election of the State, that State) shall prepare a strategic sectoral skills gap assessment, which shall--
`(i) identify areas of current and expected demand for labor and skills in a specific industry sector or group of related occupations that is--
`(I) producing high-quality jobs in the local area or region involved;
`(II) developing emerging jobs in that area or region; or
`(III) suffering chronic worker shortages;
`(ii) identify the current and expected supply of labor and skills in that sector or group in the local area or region; and
`(iii) identify gaps between the current and expected demand and supply of labor and skills in that sector or group in the local area or region.
`(B) SPECIFIC CONTENTS- The assessment shall contain data regarding--
`(i)(I) specific high-quality employment opportunities offered by industries in the local area or region; and
`(II) specific skills desired for such opportunities;
`(ii)(I) occupations and positions in the local area or region that are difficult to fill; and
`(II) specific skills desired for such occupations and positions;
`(iii)(I) areas of growth and decline among industries and occupations in the local area or region; and
`(II) specific skills desired for such growth areas; and
`(iv) specific inventories of skills of unemployed or underemployed individuals in the local area or region.
`(C) INFORMATION- The assessment shall contain current (as of the date of preparation of the assessment) information including specific information from multiple employers in the sector or group described in subparagraph (A)(i), labor organizations, and others connected to the businesses and workers in that sector or group, to illuminate local needs of both employers and workers. To the maximum extent possible, the information shall be regularly updated information.
`(D) SURVEY- The assessment shall contain the results of a survey or focus group interviews of employers and labor organizations and other relevant individuals and organizations in the local area or region.
`(E) EXCEPTION-
`(i) STATE- A State shall not be required to use the funds made available through a grant received under this section, to prepare an assessment described in this paragraph.
`(ii) LOCAL BOARD OR CONSORTIUM- A local board or consortium shall not be required to use the funds made available through a grant received under this section, to prepare an assessment described in this paragraph, if the local board or consortium demonstrates that, within the 2 years prior to receiving the grant, an assessment that meets the requirements of this paragraph has been prepared for the local area or region involved.
`(3) SKILLS PARTNERSHIP- In carrying out this section, local boards and consortia shall enter into partnerships that include--
`(A) representatives of the local boards for the local area or region involved;
`(B) representatives of multiple employers for a specific industry sector or group of related occupations, and related sectors or occupations, identified through the assessment described in paragraph (2) as having identified gaps between the current and expected demand and supply of labor and skills in the industry sector or group of related occupations in the local area or region involved;
`(C) representatives of economic development agencies for the local area or region;
`(D) representatives of providers of training services described in subsection (a)(3) in the local area or region;
`(E) representatives nominated by State labor federations or local labor federations; and
`(F) other entities that can provide needed supportive services tailored to the needs of workers in the sector or group.
`(4) STRATEGIC SKILLS GAP ACTION PLAN- The partnership shall develop a strategic skills gap action plan, based on the assessment, that--
`(A)(i) identifies specific barriers to adequate supply of labor and skills in demand in a specific industry sector or group of related occupations that is producing high-quality jobs in the local area or region involved; and
`(ii) identifies activities (which may include the provision of needed supportive services) that will remove or alleviate the barriers described in clause (i) that could be undertaken by one-stop operators and providers of training services described in subsection (a)(3);
`(B) specifies how the local board (or consortium) and economic development agencies in the partnership will integrate the board's or consortium's workforce development strategies with local or regional economic development strategies in that sector or group; and
`(C) identifies resources and strategies that will be used in the local area or region to address the skill gaps for both unemployed and incumbent workers in that sector or group.
`(5) STRATEGIC TRAINING CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT SEED GRANTS-
`(A) IN GENERAL- The local board or consortium, after consultation with the partnership, shall make grants to providers of training services described in subsection (a)(3), one-stop operators, and other appropriate intermediaries to pay for the Federal share of the cost of--
`(i) developing curricula to meet needs identified in the assessment described in paragraph (2) and to overcome barriers identified in the plan described in paragraph (4);
`(ii) modifying the programs of training services offered by the providers in order to meet those needs and overcome those barriers;
`(iii) operating pilot training efforts that demonstrate new curricula, or modifications to curricula, described in clause (i);
`(iv) expanding capacity of providers of training services in sectors or groups described in paragraph (2)(A)(i);
`(v) reorganizing service delivery systems to better serve the needs of employers and workers in the sectors or groups; or
`(vi) developing business services to ensure retention and greater competitiveness of the sectors or groups.
`(B) FEDERAL SHARE-
`(i) IN GENERAL- The Federal share of the cost described in subparagraph (A) shall be 75 percent.
`(ii) NON-FEDERAL SHARE- The non-Federal share of the cost may be provided in cash or in kind, fairly evaluated, including plant, equipment, or services.'.
SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Section 138 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2872), as redesignated by section 3(1), is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(d) Skills Gap Capacity Enhancement Grants- In addition to any amounts authorized to be appropriated under subsection (a), (b), or (c), there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out section 137 such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2006 through 2009.'.
SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.
(a) Table of Contents- The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 is amended by striking the item relating to section 137 and inserting the following:
`Sec. 137. Skills gap capacity enhancement grants.
`Sec. 138. Authorization of appropriations.'.
(b) References to Authorization of Appropriations-
(1) YOUTH ACTIVITIES- Subsections (a) and (b)(1) of section 127 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2852) are amended by striking `section 137(a)' each place it appears and inserting `section 138(a)'.
(2) ADULT EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES- Section 132(a)(1) of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2862(a)(1)) is amended by striking `section 137(b)' and inserting `section 138(b)'.
(3) DISLOCATED WORKER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES- Subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2)(A)(i) of section 132 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2862) are amended by striking `section 137(c)' each place it appears and inserting `section 138(c)'.
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
THOMAS Home Contact Accessibility Legal FirstGov

movements so as to substantially interfere with SOMEONE's liberty

Send this document to a colleague
Close This Window
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}







NUMBER 13-01-00674-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI B EDINBURG

JAMES THOMAS GUYMON, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On appeal from the 103rd District Court of Willacy County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Hinojosa and Rodriguez
Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

A jury found appellant, James Thomas Guymon, guilty of the offenses of kidnapping[1] and unlawful restraint of a child.[2] Enhanced by two prior felony convictions, the trial court assessed his punishment at life imprisonment. On direct appeal, this Court affirmed the kidnapping conviction and life sentence, but vacated the unlawful restraint conviction on double jeopardy grounds. Guymon v. State, No. 13-01-674-CR, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 914,(Tex. App.BCorpus Christi Jan. 30, 2003), rev=d, No. PD-0465-03 (Tex. Crim. App. Jan. 12, 2005). In an unpublished opinion, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed appellant=s conviction and sentence for the offense of kidnapping because the evidence was legally insufficient and rendered a judgment of acquittal on that charge. The court of criminal appeals remanded the case to this Court to review appellant=s unlawful restraint conviction in light of its holding. Guymon, No. PD-0465-03, slip op. at 11. We now do so.
Because the parties are familiar with the facts, and they are set out at length in our original opinion and the opinion of the court of criminal appeals, we will not recite them here. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
In his second issue, appellant contends the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support his conviction of unlawful restraint of a child fourteen years of age or younger because the evidence does not prove he unlawfully restrained the child.
When we review the legal sufficiency of the evidence, we view all the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979); Young v. State, 14 S.W.3d 748, 753 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). A person commits the offense of unlawful restraint if he intentionally or knowingly restrains another person. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 20.02 (Vernon 2003). The word Arestrain@ means Ato restrict a person=s movements without consent, so as to interfere substantially with the person=s liberty, by moving the person from one place to another or by confining the person.@ Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 20.01 (1) (Vernon 2003).
After reviewing the sum of the evidence in this case showing appellant=s intent to prevent the child=s liberation, the court of criminal appeals found, AEven if this evidence is viewed only >in the light most favorable to the verdict,= no reasonable jury could find that appellant=s act of giving a ride to a strange child who appeared to be incapacitated is sufficient to prove that appellant intended to prevent G.C.=s liberation. . . .@ Guymon, No. PD-0465-03, slip op. at 9. The court explained that A[w]hile G.C.=s request for a ride could not make any restraint that existed consensual because G.C. was a child under the age of 14 and legally incapable of consenting to restraint, it does provide evidence that appellant did not initiate contact,@ and AG.C.=s testimony tends to show that appellant did not exercise any physical restraint on G.C. other than the normal >restraint= of riding in a moving vehicle. . . .@ Id. at 10.
After reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we agree with the findings of the court of criminal appeals, and conclude that no rational trier of fact could have found that appellant restricted G.C.=s movements so as to substantially interfere with G.C.=s liberty. Accordingly, we hold the evidence is legally insufficient to support appellant=s conviction for unlawful restraint. We sustain appellant=s second issue.
In his third issue, appellant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion for mistrial based on improper jury argument by the prosecutor. In our original opinion, we found that appellant had failed to preserve error because he did not obtain an adverse ruling on his motion for mistrial. The court of criminal appeals concluded that the trial court had overruled appellant=s motion and held that we should have addressed this issue. However, because we have sustained appellant=s second issue, it is unnecessary to address this issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1.
We reverse appellant=s conviction and sentence for the offense of unlawful restraint and render a judgment of acquittal of that charge.

FEDERICO G. HINOJOSA
Justice


Do not publish. See Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).

Memorandum Opinion delivered and filed this
the 30th day of August, 2005.
[1] See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 20.03(a) (Vernon 2003).
[2] See Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 20.02(a) (Vernon 2003).

Will a Sea Man on Cruise Control Ignore a District 32 Electorate Demanding A Debate with Aviator Juan Garcia?

Will he commit today or will he Delay, Delay, Delay?

In an Enron sort of way

will he run from his distict from the beach to the bay?

Word on Ocean Drive has it he is upping the ante to triple his pay

in campaign donations so that he may stay

As the monotonous mantra makes for a boring and unproductive day

Engagement of the average citizen give the people back their say

After all it's the American way

and We Texans sign the checks you cash

but do you earn your pay

do you really want to stay

cuz we came to play

is it insurance that molds you like clay?

Jaime Kenedeño said...
Ok here we go,

Republicans are not the enemy. It is the multi division of the Democratic Party and the Yanquis at the head of each faction of special interest self dealing to themselves. The Factionated Democratic Party is interested in I and there is no I in team. For this reason the Democratic Vote will experience the Ross Perot effect. Same thing in other races where disenchanted Democrats will side with Republicans instead of supporting Marisela Saldana, Jimmy Rodriguez, Larry Olivarez or even a well established incumbent like Federico Hinojosa. These candidates suffer from the disenchanted factions within the Democratic Party. I dont believe Alex Garcia or either of the State Chair Candidates possess the committment, influence or dedication to the Nueces Democratic Party to unite the factions much less draw Independent or Open Minded Reasonable Republican electorate support. I believe Rose Vela will extract a certain faction of Democratic Electorate though probably not enough to win. However, a certain progressive approach might possess a shock value that will synergize public opinion in her favor. I believe Juan Garcia can upset the incumbent if he can inspire and energize a Polanco Republicano District. Juan is very charismatic and a bold progressive movement will wake up a ho hum electorate. He has the innovative and the genius to break the mold. But will he Go for it. I believe he has the wearwithall and gumption to respectfully unseat a Candidate on Cruise Control.

Perry has the King Ranch and Corporate Welfare Recipients and the only way to eject him will be by bartering with a leveraged Power Broker like Delay to target his Achilles Heal. Make a deal with Delay or Scooter. Trade the expensive prosecution for a stepping down of Top Texas Republicans (King Ranch Puppets) like Perry & Craddick.

With the Education funding we should demand that the dedication of lottery money to the Education of our Children be adhered to as it was sold to Texas. The Lottery when legislated was for the Education of Texas Students.

Finally, the Private Sector is funded under the WIA slush fund for Corporate Welfare Recipients under the Guise of a Welfare Reform or Welfare to Work / JOB generating program to help the poor. The rich are getting richer in the name of helping the poor.

And one needs to always remember it is both parties dippin into the creative crony contractualism. Give it a title, write a grant and set up a front office with a computer and a sign; then get some brochures and a few token clients and funnel the Avarice in a shell game like manner and voila a new ranch or a new house maybe an agency hummer or King Ranch Pickup Truck with a magnetic sign. Give a few JOBS to your network affiliates and send the clients to perform community based work and get rich and richer doing it. Ask Mary Cano or Oscar Martinez to explain it in detail. Charmed I'm sure.

4:54 AM