Why does Alabama, one of the poorest states in the Union, continue to vote Republican?

Here's how they voted in 2006 on some Labor-related issues

1. BUDGET RESOLUTION/SPENDING CUTS—S. Con. Res. 83—
Based on Bush administration recommendations, the fiscal year 2007 budget resolution called for cuts, or underfunding, in many vital working family programs. Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) offered an amendment to increase funding for labor, health and education programs by $7 billion. The amendment passed March 16 by a 73-27 margin.

Shelby: voted NO
Sessions: voted NO

2. BUDGET RESOLUTION—S. Con. Res. 83—
The Bush administration budget plan outlined in the FY 2007 budget resolution called for substantial cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and other programs that strengthen and improve jobs, health care and education. But even these proposed cuts do not offset the huge tax cuts—mainly for the wealthy—called for by the White House. In fact, the budget resolution would add $266 billion to the deficit over the next five years, and the $873 billion spending cap would result in a significant loss of federal support for education, veterans’ medical care, law enforcement, transportation and other vital services for millions of Americans. The resolution passed March 16 on a 51-49 vote.

Shelby: voted YES
Sessions: voted YES

3. BUDGET RECONCILIATION—H.R. 4297—
Congress adjourned in December without passing the fiscal year 2006 budget reconciliation bill that contained President Bush’s fifth round of tax cuts for the rich. By May, however, the Republican leadership had lined up enough support to pass a $70 billion tax cut. Nearly half of the benefits in H.R. 4297 would help households with incomes of more than $1 million, and 55 percent of the benefits would go to the 3 percent of households with incomes above $200,000. Contrary to Bush administration claims that the bill benefits middle-income tax payers, the three-quarters of U.S. households with incomes below $75,000 would receive just 5 percent of the tax benefits, and 68 percent of U.S. households would receive no tax benefits at all. The bill passed May 11 by a 54-44 count.

Shelby: Voted YES
Sessions: Voted YES

4. IMMIGRATION/GUEST WORKERS—S. 2611—
The comprehensive immigration reform bill included a new program to admit 500,000 guest workers per year on H-2C visas in a variety of occupations. The new visa program lacked sufficient protections for existing wages and benefits. The H-2C visa program would allow employers to petition for temporary workers without a requirement that the work be seasonal or truly temporary, essentially granting employers the ability to turn long-term, skilled work into temporary jobs filled with an easily exploitable workforce, resulting in lower pay and benefits for all.
Sen. Byron Dorgan, (D-N.D.) offered an amendment to strike the new H-2C visa program from the bill.
The amendment was tabled (killed) on May 16 on a 69-28 vote.

Shelby: Voted YES (kill it)
Sessions: Voted NO (keep it)

5. IMMIGRATION/GUEST WORKERS—S. 2611—
The new H-2C guest workers program included in the immigration reform bill also contained a provision to allow an automatic 20 percent increase each year above the initial 500,000 visa limit. Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) offered an amendment to reduce H-2C non-immigrant guest worker visas from 500,000 to 200,000 per year and eliminate the 20 percent increase per year. The amendment passed by a voice vote after a motion to table it failed May 16 on an 18-79 vote.

On the Motion to table it,
Shelby: Voted: YES
Sessions Voted: NO

6. ESTATE TAX REPEAL—H.R. 8—
President Bush and Republican congressional leaders have long sought to repeal the federal tax on wealthy estates at the same time when critical domestic programs are being squeezed as a result of earlier Bush tax cuts for investors and wealthy families. Not only would repeal of the estate tax benefit just the wealthiest 0.5 percent of the wealthiest estates, the proposal would cost nearly $1 trillion between 2012 and 2021. Future generations of workers, students and the elderly should not be asked to shoulder the added burden of paying for more tax cuts for the super rich. In addition, the media campaign to repeal the estate tax has been bankrolled by 18 wealthy families whose net worth exceeds $185 billion.
A cloture motion to end debate on the bill failed June 8 on a 57-41 vote.

On the Motion:
Shelby: Voted YES (end debate and pass it)
Sessions: Voted YES

7. ESTATE TAX AND MINIMUM WAGE—H.R. 5970—
After the House passed H.R. 5970, a package that combined an increase in the federal minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour with "poison-pill" provisions that would slash the estate tax and cut pay for tipped workers, the Republican leadership of the Senate refused to strip the poison-pill provisions and allow the Senate to vote on a minimum wage increase with no strings attached. Democrats strongly objected to attaching poison-pill amendments to a minimum wage increase. In June, the Senate had already rejected one of those provisions―legislation to gut the estate tax—and for good reason. The estate tax provisions of H.R. 5970 would blow a $753 billion hole in the federal budget, and those costs would ultimately have to be paid for with budget cuts in programs that serve working people, such as Medicare, Medicaid, veterans’ programs and unemployment insurance. This would not be a fair deal for working people, since H.R. 5970 would give an average tax cut of $1.3 million to the richest 8,200 estates in the country. Another poison pill in H.R. 5970 would have cut pay for up to 1.1 million tipped workers in seven states by as much as $5.50 per hour, or $11,440 per year.
The Senate killed H.R. 5970 by failing to muster the necessary 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles. The final vote on Aug. 3 was 56-42.

Shelby: Voted YES
Sessions: Voted YES

8. * EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE--S. 842--
The Employee Free Choice Act would that ensure when a majority of employees in a workplace decides to form a union, they can do so without the debilitating obstacles employers now use to block their workers' free choice. The Employee Free Choice Act allows workers to freely choose whether to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation. It also provides mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes and establishes stronger penalties for violations of employee rights when workers seek to form a union and during first-contract negotiations. The legislation never came to a vote in 2006. The Senate bill won 42 cosponsors. It is included in the Voting Record but not included in the year-end or lifetime percentages. Workers won the battle in the House of Representatives 241 to 185 (see how your representative voted), but the war for Employee Free Choice rages on in the Senate and at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Anti-worker senators are threatening to filibuster and President Bush has promised to veto the bill. Workers need your support now more than ever.

Workers need your support now more than ever. Learn more about the Employee Free Choice Act and send a clear message to the White House and to your Senators: Pass the Employee Free Choice Act Now.


Learn the Basics About the Employee Free Choice Act
Full Text of the Employee Free Choice Act
Did Your Representative Co-Sponsor the Bill? Find Out
GET THE FACTS Employee Free Choice Act Fact Sheet
What does EFCA do? Who does it affect? What does it mean for me? Find out in this quick and easy-to-understand guide from Change to Win. Share it with your co-workers.