McCain didn’t call out our own Senator Roy Blunt by name, but the implication is clear; the shoe is clearly measured to fit Blunt and he’ll just have to wear it. So how did Blunt who is usually very careful to try to appear reasonable when he’s in front of adults (his Republican base is another matter – witness the Obama “monkey” comments) earn the vituperation of the admittedly often vituperative McCain?

Remember back when Democrats who had had enough of GOP obstructionism changed the requirements for approval of presidential appointments to a straight-up majority vote rather than a super majority of 60 votes? The change only went so far; it didn’t apply to legislation or to appointments to the Supreme Court. And it took lots of provocation and unfilled positions before Harry Reid was moved to act:

It represented the culmination of years of frustration over what Democrats denounced as a Republican campaign to stall the machinery of Congress, stymie President Obama’s agenda and block his choices for cabinet posts and federal judgeships by insisting that virtually everything the Senate approves be done by a supermajority.

And do you remember what Republicans said at the time? I believe that there were accusations of “irreparably damaging” the Congress and disregarding “constitutional prerogatives” along with threats of a bad outcome for Democrats down the line. Our own Republican Senator Roy Blunt echoed Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s  sinister threats of bad times ahead for folks who dared stymie GOP obstructionism:

“The last time the Democrats decided they were going to do something all by themselves it was Obamacare,” said Senator Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican. “And I’m pretty sure they regret doing it that way and my guess is they’ll regret this at some point too.”

Now that it’s proving successful, I doubt that there are many Democrats who regret Obamacare, but Blunt, who apparently never forgets a grudge, thinks that he can insure that Democrats regret changing the filibuster rules. Along with fellow Republican Senators Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, and Mike Leeof Utah, Blunt is proposing a similar change to the approval process for Supreme Court nominees.

Oddly, though, as Politico notes, not all Democrats are as disturbed by the proposed expansion of the rule change:

“We’re witnessing a massive flip-flop in slow motion,” said Adam Jentleson, a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). “Democrats appreciate the vote of confidence from Republicans in the wisdom of our rules change.”

It seems that whether or not our pols approve of changing the rules that govern congressional approval of judicial nominees depends on how confident they are that their party will take the White House and Senate in 2016. And many Democrats aren’t necessarily sure that 2014 presages a GOP victory in a presidential election in which most of the Senate seats that are up for grabs will be, contrary to the last election, in less GOP-friendly states. And of course, they’re also watching with glee the gathering of rightwing clowns, ethically-challenged governors and GOP establishment retreads who are now declaring their presidential ambitions.

In fact, the most outspoken condemnations of the Blunt/Alexander initiative comes from a Republican:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned his colleagues about the “sheer hypocrisy” of such a move. “We said this was outrageous what they did,” McCain said. “Not only how they did it, but what they did, OK? Some of my Republican colleagues seem to have forgotten that. Some selective amnesia.”

Sheer hypocrisy! Hear that Roy Blunt? John McCain is shocked by your sheer hypocrisy. Of course, lots of us here in Missouri could have told him all about how Blunt rolls a long time ago. But it’s not a bad thing to have Blunt outed by one of his own party, even if it is coming a bit late. As Eric Posner observes in Slate:

… . When senators argue about the filibuster, they appeal to the public interest, but if their position on the rule always reflects their political interests, then they are, essentially, lying. It all seems like a game.

A game. Indeed. But, of course, it’s a game with potentially deadly consequences. It’s just too bad that nowadays the GOP can’t find any players that aren’t plain and simple liars and hypocrites. I know why Democrats had to change the initial rule; I also know why Republicans are proposing to expand the change. The reasons aren’t even remotely similar. I’m with John McCain on this one.

A majority of the members of the U.S. Senate can change their procedural rules. Today that body did just that, in a reaction to republican minority obstruction, in ridding the body of the filibuster for district court federal judgeships, appellate court judgeships, and administration appointments subject to Senate approval. Bear in mind, a majority of senators must still approve these appointments.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) was one of the members of the Senate who finally had enough of the unprecedented republican minority obstruction and who voted for the rule change.

Meanwhile, a few people have come down with a case of pearl clutching vapors, via Twitter:

Milo ‏@chasbottom

@clairecmc I’ll remember your vote on the filibuster rule when election day is here. You’re Harry Reids vote, right? 2:42 PM – 21 Nov 13

Uh, you’re gonna have to wait until 2018. It’s going to be a while.

Tessa M. Harper ‏@TessaHarper2

@clairecmc Today you put another nail in the coffin of your political career 7:23 PM – 21 Nov 13

Again, it’s a long wait to 2018.

It’s so comforting to know that republican senators agree that the filibuster is one of the most important and inviolable constitutional prerogatives of that body. Oh, wait…

Almost three years ago we asked Senator McCaskill (D) about filibuster reform:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

….Blue Girl: One in nine federal judgeships, first question here, uh, they, you know, Congress, the hundred eleventh adjourned before the Senate could even consider hundreds of bills, uh, nothing’s been getting done, uh, this did not happen because it takes sixty votes to break a filibuster but because the minority can force the entire Senate to waste up to thirty hours ever, ever, every time the Senate holds a vote. What reforms do you support to stop this obstruction of even the most uncontroversial business?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Um, well the good news is that we did get twenty-two of them through, um, judges through, uh, by, by unanimous consent right before we adjourned. So, that’s good. Um, I do think the secret hold thing is really important because if you own it then you gotta explain it. And what happens is these guys hold these things secretly and then they, of course, vote for the nominees when they’re for, forced to.

Blue Girl: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, you having the ability just to gum things up without anybody ever taking ownership is a huge problem. I am optimistic that we are gonna get the rule change on secret holds.  Um, I think that is really hard for the other side to justify as they’re preaching transparency and accountability. I don’t know how they don’t accept a change in the rules to do away with the secret hold. And I think you do away with the secret hold it has an amazing ability to clean some of this stuff up. Now, do we make the changes in the filibuster? I would love to see the people who are filibustering have to be the ones to produce the forty. I’d love to see the people who are doing the filibustering have to hold the floor. I’d love for the people to see an actual filibuster.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Instead of the procedural  way they’ve done it,  which is they quietly object and then they kind of skulk off and the majority is left there to hold the floor and, and for the thirty hours and the staff [crosstalk] is there and so [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: They should read about the Polish Sejm.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Uh, yeah. So, so, um, but the question is, are we willing to break what has been traditional precedent in the Senate and change the rules by a simple majority vote? And once we do that then we need to realize that it can always be done. And that means that the Republicans could do the same thing if they took the majority in two years. And we have to realize the rules they may want to change may not be as reasonable and modest as the rule changes we want. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin, Show Me Progress: But does, but does anybody expect that, you know, given their past behavior that they wouldn’t do that anyway?

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think it’s really hard for them to do that anyway. I think it’s very hard. I think, um, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s kind of what happened with the nuclear option. As you remember, there was a group of Republicans that wanted to do this when Democrats, uh, were blocking Bush’s judicial nominees. And it was in fact a group of moderate Republicans that said, no, we’re not gonna do this. And it didn’t happen. If it had happened I don’t know, you know, we probably would have had some significant rule changes along the lines that a lot of people are talking about now. You know, the Republicans make the point, and it is a valid point, how often we fill the tree. Um, we have filled the tree a lot. We have not given the Republicans an opportunity to offer amendments and so it’s almost like an escalating warfare here. Um, and the reason that we fill the tree is because they’re, I think the leadership thought it was a good idea to keep us from having to waste time on voting on amendments that were not germane. What I affectionately call the gotcha amendments.  And [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Poison pills.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): The, yeah, poison pills. Um, at the end of the day. It’s probably what you signed up for when you go to the United States Senate, that you’ve got to cast difficult votes. And I’m one of the senators that is encouraging leadership to not always fill the tree, to allow open amendment process. Um, so, we’ll see what happens on the rules. But I, I’m gonna be surpri, we’ve all signed  a letter  saying we want these rule changes. And I am supporting these rule changes. And I’m hopeful these rule changes happen. Um, but if they don’t I think we’ve got to, you know, decide, um, how far are we willing to go and what are the consequences of that long term for the Senate and for the minority, not just in the current scenario….

Here’s the thing, anyone who thinks a republican majority in the Senate wouldn’t get rid of the filibuster (for everything) at their first opportunity is delusional.

It took long enough for the current Democratic majority to realize just that.

Even with fifty-four (or fifty-five, counting Angus King from Maine) votes in the majority Democratic Party caucus the United States Senate is going to have to overcome the hurdle of the minority party’s obstruction via the filibuster and the senate’s arcane rules. There is, of course, a record.

The obstructionist history of the United States Senate:

Senate Action on Cloture Motions

Congress Years Motions Filed Votes on Cloture Cloture Invoked

112 2011-2012 109 68 37

111 2009-2010 137 91 63

110 2007-2008 139 112 61

109 2005-2006 68 54 34

108 2003-2004 62 49 12

107 2001-2002 71 61 34

106 1999-2000 71 58 28

105 1997-1998 69 53 18

104 1995-1996 82 50 9

103 1993-1994 80 46 14

102 1991-1992 60 48 23

101 1989-1990 38 24 11

100 1987-1988 54 43 12

99 1985-1986 41 23 10

98 1983-1984 41 19 11

97 1981-1982 31 27 10

96 1979-1980 30 21 11

95 1977-1978 23 13 3

[emphasis added]

Gee, which party lost their majority in the 2006 election and decided to use arcane rules to obstruct everything?

Their initials begin with the republican party.

From Maine:

November 10

Another View: Snowe does not put blame for dysfunction in the right place

Over-use of the filibuster by Republicans, including Snowe, led to the Senate’s problems.

By Bill Harnsberger, who lives in Portland

….Sen. Snowe did not tell the whole story in her letter when she said that “essentially 60 votes are required to pass legislation” in the United States Senate.

The reason those 60 votes are “essentially” required now is because, since they lost their grip on the majority, Republicans have systematically abused Senate rules to grind the chamber’s business to a halt.

Sixty votes are required to overcome the threat of a filibuster and move a bill to the Senate floor.

Once that threshold is passed, only 51 votes – a simple majority – are needed to actually pass the bill.

The filibuster was used an average of once a year between 1920 and 1970. During the 2009-2010 session – President Obama’s first year in office – it was employed by Republicans more than 130 times, derailing legislation that could have created jobs and gotten our economy chugging along at a much healthier pace.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell publicly stated that his No. 1 goal was to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

Instead of doing the people’s business, McConnell and his Republican colleagues, including Sen. Snowe, coldly abused Senate rules to gum up the works and derail Obama’s agenda.

Sen. Snowe went along with McConnell’s plan and now has the gall to claim, essentially, that “both sides do it.”

Well, both sides don’t do it. Republicans alone are responsible for the gridlock in the Senate … end of story….

And the conventional wisdom labeled Olympia Snowe (r) a “moderate”.

Fix it? We ain’t holding our breath:

Posted at 05:01 PM ET, 11/09/2012

Beginning of the end? Half the Senate now supports filibuster reform

By Greg Sargent

It appears that Tuesday’s results have resulted in a bit of a milestone in the push to fix our broken Senate: Half of the 2013 Senate now supports some form of filibuster reform.

The train seems to be moving forward….

We’re hoping Senator Claire McCaskill (D) is on that bandwagon. We’ve inquired about this in the past:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Twitter flurry on republican obstruction and filibuster reform (December 11, 2010)

….If the NFL operated the way the United States Senate does there’d be no scoring. “Uh, we can theoretically block a field goal so we don’t need to actually do so.”

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): a conversation with bloggers in Kansas City (January 20, 2011)

….Blue Girl: One in nine federal judgeships, first question here, uh, they, you know, Congress, the hundred eleventh adjourned before the Senate could even consider hundreds of bills, uh, nothing’s been getting done, uh, this did not happen because it takes sixty votes to break a filibuster but because the minority can force the entire Senate to waste up to thirty hours ever, ever, every time the Senate holds a vote. What reforms do you support to stop this obstruction of even the most uncontroversial business?

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Um, well the good news is that we did get twenty-two of them through, um, judges through, uh, by, by unanimous consent right before we adjourned. So, that’s good. Um, I do think the secret hold thing is really important because if you own it then you gotta explain it. And what happens is these guys hold these things secretly and then they, of course, vote for the nominees when they’re for, forced to.

Blue Girl: Right.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): So, you having the ability just to gum things up without anybody ever taking ownership is a huge problem. I am optimistic that we are gonna get the rule change on secret holds.  Um, I think that is really hard for the other side to justify as they’re preaching transparency and accountability. I don’t know how they don’t accept a change in the rules to do away with the secret hold. And I think you do away with the secret hold it has an amazing ability to clean some of this stuff up. Now, do we make the changes in the filibuster? I would love to see the people who are filibustering have to be the ones to produce the forty. I’d love to see the people who are doing the filibustering have to hold the floor. I’d love for the people to see an actual filibuster.

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Instead of the procedural  way they’ve done it,  which is they quietly object and then they kind of skulk off and the majority is left there to hold the floor and, and for the thirty hours and the staff [crosstalk] is there and so [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: They should read about the Polish Sejm.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Uh, yeah. So, so, um, but the question is, are we willing to break what has been traditional precedent in the Senate and change the rules by a simple majority vote? And once we do that then we need to realize that it can always be done. And that means that the Republicans could do the same thing if they took the majority in two years. And we have to realize the rules they may want to change may not be as reasonable and modest as the rule changes we want. [crosstalk]

Michael Bersin, Show Me Progress: But does, but does anybody expect that, you know, given their past behavior that they wouldn’t do that anyway?

Blue Girl: Yeah.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): I think it’s really hard for them to do that anyway. I think it’s very hard. I think, um, it’s, it’s, uh, it’s kind of what happened with the nuclear option. As you remember, there was a group of Republicans that wanted to do this when Democrats, uh, were blocking Bush’s judicial nominees. And it was in fact a group of moderate Republicans that said, no, we’re not gonna do this. And it didn’t happen. If it had happened I don’t know, you know, we probably would have had some significant rule changes along the lines that a lot of people are talking about now. You know, the Republicans make the point, and it is a valid point, how often we fill the tree. Um, we have filled the tree a lot. We have not given the Republicans an opportunity to offer amendments and so it’s almost like an escalating warfare here. Um, and the reason that we fill the tree is because they’re, I think the leadership thought it was a good idea to keep us from having to waste time on voting on amendments that were not germane. What I affectionately call the gotcha amendments.  And [crosstalk]…

Blue Girl: Poison pills.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): The, yeah, poison pills. Um, at the end of the day. It’s probably what you signed up for when you go to the United States Senate, that you’ve got to cast difficult votes. And I’m one of the senators that is encouraging leadership to not always fill the tree, to allow open amendment process. Um, so, we’ll see what happens on the rules. But I, I’m gonna be surpri, we’ve all signed  a letter  saying we want these rule changes. And I am supporting these rule changes. And I’m hopeful these rule changes happen. Um, but if they don’t I think we’ve got to, you know, decide, um, how far are we willing to go and what are the consequences of that long term for the Senate and for the minority, not just in the current scenario….

U.S. Senate on Filibuster Reform: “Yeah, whatever.” (January 27, 2011)

Clap louder?….

All that did was make me mad (May 11, 2012)

….That Harry Reid and the Democrats didn’t change the rules in January of 2011 when the tea party idiots who had been elected in November were seated was nothing short of political malpractice….

There is something of a good side to this. Think about it. The republican minority in the U.S. Senate, with only forty-five votes, can’t really do anything to stop Obamacare, nor can they force the continuation of dubya’s windfall tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

Via the Twitterverse:

@RoyBlunt Senator Roy Blunt

For those noting that recess appts are common practice under past presidents, this is unprecedented bc the Senate is not currently in recess 5 hours ago

So, if the Senate is actually in session was Senator Blunt (r) there? Isn’t that the opposite of recess? Just asking.

Evidently not. On either side of that hand wringing Twitter post:

@RoyBlunt Senator Roy Blunt

Enjoyed talking w/ business leaders at Sell’s Carpet in Boonville abt ways to alleviate burdens on job creators. yfrog.com/od7ydftoj 6 hours ago

I believe Boonville is in Missouri.

@RoyBlunt Senator Roy Blunt

Thanks to the farmers who stopped by Bloomfield’s Family Restaurant to discuss how labor regs will hurt family farms. pic.twitter.com/UY5RzbYT 2 hours ago

Oh, it’s an obstructionist republican game.

From Eli Yokley:

…SEN. ROY BLUNT will be in mid-Missouri again today, holding business roundtables in Lake Ozark, California, Booneville, Fayette, Marshall, Brusnswick, and Moberly…

Yep.

Heh. Complaining about not being in recess while not actually being there. That’s real chutzpah.

From the White House:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 20, 2011

Statement from President Obama on the Senate Vote on Teacher and First Responder Jobs

For the second time in two weeks, every single Republican in the United States Senate has chosen to obstruct a bill that would create jobs and get our economy going again.  That’s unacceptable. We must do what’s right for the country and pass the common-sense proposals in the American Jobs Act.  Every Senate Republican voted to block a bill that would help middle class families and keep hundreds of thousands of firefighters on the job, police officers on the streets, and teachers in the classroom when our kids need them most.

Those Americans deserve an explanation as to why they don’t deserve those jobs – and every American deserves an explanation as to why Republicans refuse to step up to the plate and do what’s necessary to create jobs and grow the economy right now.

We must rebuild the economy the American way and restore security for the middle class, based on the values of balance and fairness. Independent economists have said the American Jobs Act could create up to two million jobs next year.  So the choice is clear.  Our fight isn’t over.  We will keep working with Congress to bring up the American Jobs Act piece by piece, and give Republicans another chance to put country before party and help us put the American people back to work.

###

The vote, just to discuss the bill:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session

Vote Summary

Question: On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1723 )

Vote Number: 177 Vote Date: October 20, 2011, 09:55 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Rejected

Measure Number: S. 1723

Measure Title: A bill to provide for teacher and first responder stabilization.

Vote Counts: YEAs 50

NAYs 50

Blunt (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis added]

Is anyone surprised that Roy Blunt (r-lobbyists) turned out to be an obstructionist in the Senate and a protectionist for the privilege of the top one percent? Think about that the next time you’re waiting for police or fire personnel during an emergency.

Is anyone surprised? Obstructionist republicans used a procedural move to block discussion of the American Jobs Act of 2011:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session

Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Proceed to S. 1660 )

Vote Number: 160 Vote Date: October 11, 2011, 06:34 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected

Measure Number: S. 1660 (American Jobs Act of 2011)

Measure Title: A bill to provide tax relief for American workers and businesses, to put workers back on the job while rebuilding and modernizing America, and to provide pathways back to work for Americans looking for jobs.

Vote Counts: YEAs 50

NAYs 49

Not Voting 1

Blunt (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

[emphasis added]

Even Joe Lieberman voted for discussion.

Yep, that’s right, republicans use their arcane Senate rules to stop a discussion that a majority of senators want to have. It’s not like the Senate has been burning the candle at both ends and there’s no time to fit it in.

Clap louder? Via Twitter:

@clairecmc  Claire McCaskill

Woooohooooo! We did it! The Rules of the United States Senate now prohibit secret holds. The vote was 92 -4. 1 hour ago

@BHIndepMO  Brandon H.

Secret Holds are gone? Now what will Claire McCaskill talk about? kidding kidding @clairecmc ;D #mo 1 hour ago

@BGinKC  Blue Girl

Apparently @clairecmc and I define “victory” differently. I consider what the Democrats failed to do re: Senate reform abject surrender. 41 minutes ago

The results of today’s votes to change the Senate rules:

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 112th Congress – 1st Session (2011)

Vote Date Issue Question Result Description

00006 27-Jan S.Res. 21 On the Resolution Rejected S. Res. 21 As Amended; A resolution to amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide procedures for extended debate.

00005 27-Jan S.Res. 10 On the Resolution Rejected S. Res. 10 As Amended; A resolution to improve the debate and consideration of legislative matters and nominations in the Senate.

00004 27-Jan S.Res. 8 On the Resolution Rejected S. Res. 8; A resolution amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate.

00003 27-Jan S.Res. 29 On the Resolution Agreed to S. Res. 29; A resolution to permit the waiving of the reading of an amendment if the text and adequate notice are provided.

00002 27-Jan S.Res. 28 On the Resolution Agreed to S. Res. 28; A resolution to establish as a standing order of the Senate that a Senator publicly disclose a notice of intent to objecting to any measure or matter.

[emphasis added]

The vote on stopping secret holds:

Question:  On the Resolution (S. Res. 28 )

Vote Number: 2 Vote Date: January 27, 2011, 04:37 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Resolution Agreed to

Vote Counts: YEAs 92

NAYs 4

Not Voting 4

Blunt (R-MO), Yea  

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

NAYs —4

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Lee (R-UT)

Paul (R-KY)

Not Voting – 4

Feinstein (D-CA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inouye (D-HI)

McCain (R-AZ)

[emphasis added]

It looks like teabaggers and their sympathizers ain’t fans of transparency.

The vote to waive a required reading of the entire bill on the floor of the Senate (this was used by the republican minority in the last Congress as a delaying tactic):

Question:  On the Resolution (S. Res. 29 )

Vote Number: 3 Vote Date: January 27, 2011, 05:03 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Resolution Agreed to

Vote Counts: YEAs 81

NAYs 15

Not Voting 4

Blunt (R-MO), Yea

McCaskill (D-MO), Yea

NAYs —15

Coburn (R-OK)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Ensign (R-NV)

Hatch (R-UT)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Lee (R-UT)

Paul (R-KY)

Risch (R-ID)

Rubio (R-FL)

Sessions (R-AL)

Thune (R-SD)

Toomey (R-PA)

Vitter (R-LA)

Not Voting – 4

Feinstein (D-CA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inouye (D-HI)

McCain (R-AZ)

Fancy that, obstructionist republicans still want to obstruct.

Then the really big changes pertaining to filibuster reform:

SRES 8 IS

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. RES. 8

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

January 5, 2011

Mr. HARKIN (for himself, Mr. DURBIN, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mrs. SHAHEEN) submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to lie over, under the rule

RESOLUTION

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide for cloture to be invoked with less than a three-fifths majority after additional debate.

     Resolved,

SECTION 1. SENATE CLOTURE MODIFICATION.

     Paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows:

     `2. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: `Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?’ And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn–except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting–then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business.

     `Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, the amendments thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Officer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o’clock p.m. on the day following the filing of the cloture motion if an amendment in the first degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Officer, shall be decided without debate.

     `After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to vote on the final disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately before the final vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a three-fifths affirmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the majority and minority leaders or their designees. However, only one motion to extend time, sp
ecified above, may be made in any one calendar day.

     `If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment’s sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and pagination.

     `No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

     `Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority floor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the majority or minority leader, but each Senator specified shall not have more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other Senators.

     `Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.

     `After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the proposed amendment has been identified and has been available in printed form at the desk of the Members for not less than twenty-four hours.

     `(b)(1) If, upon a vote taken on a motion presented pursuant to subparagraph (a), the Senate fails to invoke cloture with respect to a measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, subsequent motions to bring debate to a close may be made with respect to the same measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business. It shall not be in order to file subsequent cloture motions on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, except by unanimous consent, until the previous motion has been disposed of.

     `(2) Such subsequent motions shall be made in the manner provided by, and subject to the provisions of, subparagraph (a), except that the affirmative vote required to bring to a close debate upon that measure, motion, or other matter, or unfinished business (other than a measure or motion to amend Senate rules) shall be reduced by three votes on the second such motion, and by three additional votes on each succeeding motion, until the affirmative vote is reduced to a number equal to or less than an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The required vote shall then be an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. The requirement of an affirmative vote of a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn shall not be further reduced upon any vote taken on any later motion made pursuant to this subparagraph with respect to that measure, motion, matter, or unfinished business.’.

SEC. 2. SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS POSTCLOTURE.

     Paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by inserting at the end the following:

     `After debate has concluded under this paragraph but prior to final disposition of the pending matter, the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader may each offer not to exceed 3 amendments identified as leadership amendments if they have been timely filed under this paragraph and are germane to the matter being amended. Debate on a leadership amendment shall be limited to 1 hour equally divided. A leadership amendment may not be divided.’.

[emphasis added]

Did you get that? If a cloture vote failed (thus continuing the filibuster) debate continues and after a time subsequent cloture votes can be taken, with the number of votes required to stop the filibuster dropped by three on each subsequent vote until only a simple majority is needed to proceed.

Well, that rules change failed:

Question:  On the Resolution (S. Res. 8 )

Vote Number: 4 Vote Date: January 27, 2011, 05:20 PM

Required For Majority: 2/3 Vote Result: Resolution Rejected

Vote Counts: YEAs 12

NAYs 84

Not Voting 4

Blunt (R-MO), Nay

McCaskill (D-MO), Nay

YEAs —12

Begich (D-AK)

Blumenthal (D-CT)

Durbin (D-IL)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Harkin (D-IA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Kohl (D-WI)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Udall (D-NM)  

Not Voting – 4

Feinstein (D-CA)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inouye (D-HI)

McCain (R-AZ)

[emphasis added]

What were you thinking, Claire? And Joe Lieberman was a good guy?

Making the U.S. Senate actually work via changing the rules, explained in 90 seconds:

Narrator: This legislative summary is brought to you by Main Street Insider. Today we examine the “constitutional option” as proposed by Senator Tom Udall which is a mechanism that opens the door to changing filibuster rules. The Senate’s reputation as the place where bills go to die is becoming increasingly appropriate since two thousand seven.

David Waldman: Major legislation used to face a filibuster about eight to ten percent of the the time as far back as the sixties. These days seventy plus percent of the bills and nominations coming to the floor face a filibuster which really means that the Senate has just become paralyzed.  

Narrator: In response Senator Udall has proposed using a procedural mechanism that allows a simple majority to end a debate on rules changes at the beginning of a new Congress instead of the usual two thirds super majority.

This so-called “constitutional option”, if approved, would apply only on the first legislative day of the session and would require the President of the Senate’s approval. It does not contain any substantive changes to the rules themselves and simply provides an avenue to approve the rules with fifty-one votes.

Supporters say that filibuster reform is crucial to meeting the nation’s many pressing concerns and believe this option presents the best hope to change the rules.

Senator Tom Udall: With the hundreds of bills passed by the House the senate’s to do list keeps growing. the obstruction is irresponsible and far too easily influenced by the special interests.

Narrator: Opponents argue that the filibuster is a longstanding and important tradition that should not be jettisoned so casually.

The measure is expected to be brought up by Senator Udall in the first day of the new session, January fifth, and will require a majority vote, or fifty votes plus Vice President Biden to pass….

Previously:

Senator Claire McCaskill (D): Twitter flurry on republican obstruction and filibuster reform (December 10, 2010)

….And, of course, we chimed in:

@MBersin @clairecmc Then do something about changing the rules in January. #MO 44 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And Blue Girl:

@BGinKC @clairecmc And if the Ds don’t change the rules 1st thing Jan 5th, it stops being their fault and starts being yours. #thatsjustthewayitis 41 minutes ago via web in reply to clairecmc

And someone else:

@DoctorD71 @clairecmc You guys need to vote to change the Senate rules to stop the R roadblock. 39 minutes ago via Twitter for BlackBerry® in reply to clairecmc

….

Well, Claire, which side are you on?