At least that is what they say about current rules that allow a small minority of senators to derail almost any legislation by fillibustering against it. Rules currently being debated by the Senate would require a senator to be on the floor while fillibustering.

A new package of reforms was introduced today by Senator Tom Udall (D-NM and Mark’s cousin).

A summary of the package, as provided by a Udall aide to The Washington Post:

Clear Path to Debate: Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed

Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.

Eliminates Secret Holds

Prohibits one Senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.

Right to Amend: Guarantees Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority

Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.

This provision addresses comments of Republicans at last year’s Rules Committee hearings. Each time Democrats raised concerns about filibusters on motions to proceed, Republicans responded that it was their only recourse because the Majority Leader fills the amendment tree and prevents them from offering amendments. Our resolution provides a simple solution — it guarantees the minority the right to offer germane amendments.

Talking Filibuster: Ensures Real Debate

Following a failed cloture vote, Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.

Expedite Nominations: Reduce Post-Cloture Time

Provides for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees. Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments — something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.

Earlier this week, Udall sent a letter to constituents asking them to sign a petition.

From his letter:

I’ve been in the Senate for two years, and while I’m proud of what we’ve been able to accomplish, I’ve developed a keen frustration with one thing in particular: the filibuster.

Don’t get me wrong: I have a deep respect for the Senate, and I also realize that the winds of political fortune change. But the simple fact is that, in recent years, the filibuster has been used to bring the people’s business to a halt in order to score political points — and I can’t stand by and let that happen.

That’s why I’ve introduced a proposal that will change how the filibuster works, forcing any senators who want to hold up the business of the Senate to show up and own their obstruction — instead of making empty threats while keeping our country from moving forward.

This week, the Senate is poised to change its governing rules, and it’s our best chance to fix the filibuster.

Sign my petition to change the rules to require only three-fifths of Senators present and voting — instead of 60 votes — to end a filibuster!

We must protect the rights of the minority, but our current system goes too far. I have seen bills that would create jobs and bills that fund supplies for our troops held up for days and weeks while I’ve worked day and night to help collect the 60 votes needed for cloture.

Meanwhile, the current rules allow the filibustering minority to not even bother to show up. They could be out for a haircut, dinner, or even out of town.

There’s a word for that: wrong.

My proposal changes that and forces the minority to show up and own their filibuster by changing the vote requirement for cloture to three-fifths of senators present and voting. If 100 senators are present, 60 votes are required. If 90 senators are present, 54 votes are required, and so on.

My proposal is a commonsense way to protect the minority’s rights while allowing us to get on with our job to make America work for the constituents who sent us to Washington. It’s a job I take seriously, and it’s a job I can do better with this rule change in place.

Also earlier this week, proponents of the changes rallied on the steps of the State Capitol.

The Brennan Center at New York University recently issued a report which looks at the effect of current filibuster rules on legislation.

From a summary of the report:

When the history of the 111th Congress is written, the inability of the Senate to function as the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders will be at the center of any analysis. Time and again, the Senate failed to vote – or even deliberate – on bills that could address the serious issues facing our nation. Presidential appointees, federal judicial nominees, legislation addressing unemployment benefits, the environment, dis­closure of political campaign contributions, and myriad other critical issues have been stalled or shelved. Why? Because the arcane rules of Senate procedure have repeatedly prevented crucial issues like these from reaching the Senate floor.

In recent years, a minority of senators have used these rules to engage in relentless obstruction, imposing a de facto 60-vote requirement for all Senate business that brings the body far from its constitutional ideal. (As explained in the pages that follow, the Framers of our Constitution clearly did not intend for 60 votes to be the norm.) We are caught in a procedural arms race where stalemate often results. What has been ac­complished has been riddled with unprincipled concessions to appease filibustering senators that distend the final product.

The current situation is simply unsupportable. There can be no doubt that the anger and frustration ex­pressed by so many Americans about the inability of government to make their lives better can be directly attributed to the Senate’s repeated failure to act. To cite just one example, the DISCLOSE Act garnered strong public support, won the vote of 59 senators, but could not become law. No wonder that recent polls show that just 21% of Americans approve of how Congress is doing its job.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has taken over for Sanders in parts of the filibuster. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) — a more centrist senator who voted for the tax cuts in 2001 — joined in and made it a colloquy.

This continues. Watch it here.

Reid claims his caucus is behind him on the act, which would give some undocumented students and military service members a change to gain legal status to remain in the country. “We all support the DREAM Act,” he said on Univision in an interview that aired Sunday. “I just need a handful of Republicans to help me.”

Kirk has said he wouldn’t, despite exhaustive efforts by DREAM Act supporters to convince him otherwise. “This is not the time to do that,” Kirk said in a debate.

How important is Kirk’s vote for passing the DREAM Act? It depends on who Reid means when he says “we all support the DREAM Act.” There are 59 senators who caucus with the Democrats and 41 Republicans. Kirk will change those numbers to 58 and 42. Reid needs 60 votes to overcome a filibuster if he hopes to pass the DREAM Act.

If Reid’s right about his caucus, he would only need two Republicans to vote “yes” on the DREAM Act. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) co-sponsored the bill and would almost certainly vote for the it as a standalone measure, although he voted in September to filibuster the defense authorization bill that included it. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) has also said he would vote for the act as a standalone bill.

But if either of them or any Democrats fall through, other Republicans are tougher to pin down. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), who was one of the original sponsors of the DREAM Act, seems likely to vote against it now because he favors a borders-first approach to tackling immigration problems. “The American people want the government to secure our borders, create jobs and reduce the deficit.” Hatch said when he announced plans to vote against the DREAM Act’s inclusion in the defense authorization bill.

Lugar, Hatch and Bennett were two of twelve Republicans who voted for the DREAM Act in 2007. The others still in Senate — Sam Brownback (R-Kans.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) — have been vague about whether they would support the measure as a standalone this year.

When the bill came up as a possible addition to the defense authorization bill, a few Democrats said they were not sure they would support it this time around. Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) told The Hill in September they might vote “no” on the DREAM Act.

But the upcoming election is bound to breathe new life into the legislative effort to provide the American people with information about the flood of money — much of it completely anonymous — that is pouring into key races. The flood comes courtesy of the Supreme Court’s shocking decision earlier this year in the Citizens United v. FEC.

Republicans, of course, have already decried the idea of Democrats pushing any legislation during the lame duck session, but they might have a harder time staying unified in their opposition, McGehee notes, if Democrats truly strip the bill down to its essential mission of disclosure:

Senators should face a vote in the lame duck on a revised version which focuses solely on disclosure and drops provisions which have been mischaracterized and exploited by the bill’s opponents, such as the language to put new restrictions on government contractors.  It will be that much harder for politicians to vote against a bill that asks for nothing more than the identities of those funneling big money to elect or unseat Members of Congress.  The endless attack ads of election season will still be fresh in the minds of Americans when their elected representatives will be asked to vote on whether those paying to run the ads should have to own up to them.  It seems a simple question and it is a roll call vote that voters will remember.

With GOP scapegoats — like the ban on large government contractors or companies with 20 percent or greater foreign ownership from participating in election spending — no longer in the picture, advocating against a simple message of disclosure might be that much more politically untenable for moderate Republicans. To illustrate her case for action, McGehee points to a good story from the Washington Monthly back in May about the Chamber of Commerce, which is planning to spend $75 million in the current election cycle:

“[A] large part of what the Chamber sells is political cover. For multibillion-dollar insurers, drug makers, and medical device manufacturers who are too smart and image conscious to make public attacks of their own, the Chamber of Commerce is a friend who will do the dirty work. “I want to give them all the deniability they need,” says [Chamber President Tom] Donahue. That deniability is evidently worth a lot. According to a January article in the National Journal, six insurers alone—Aetna, Cigna, Humana, Kaiser Foundation Health Plans, UnitedHealth Group, and Wellpoint—pumped up to $20 million into the Chamber last year.”

Which Republicans may come around? In 2007, 12 Republicans voted for the DREAM Act’s passage. Only seven are still in the Senate, and they all voted to filibuster the defense authorization bill last week. While some objected to the bill being inserted into the defense bill, others seem more likely to now oppose the DREAM Act in general — meaning passage as a standalone is far from a sure thing.

Utah Sens. Bob Bennett and Orrin Hatch are in the “secure the borders first” camp, arguing immigration reform must be preceded by stricter enforcement efforts. “The American people want the government to secure our borders, create jobs and reduce the deficit.” Hatch said to explain his “no” vote on the DREAM Act.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) may also be tough to sway. He is running for Kansas governor and has said he opposes “amnesty” for illegal immigrants even though he supported paths to legal status such as the DREAM Act in the past.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Texas) focused her criticism of the defense authorization bill on the inclusion of non-defense items in the bill. (The DREAM Act would have an impact on the military and would likely ease recruitment.)

Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe could be more likely to vote for the DREAM Act as a standalone bill. Collins said she joined the filibuster because Majority Leader Harry Reid unfairly limited Republican amendments to the defense authorization bill, not because she opposed the substance of his planned amendments. Snowe also stayed quiet on the DREAM Act when discussing her decision to filibuster.

Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) seems like a likely “yes” vote for the DREAM Act if it is pushed as a standalone bill. Lugar is a co-sponsor of the bill in its current iteration and has indicated he would support the bill’s passage this year.

Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine have both voted ‘no’ on the DISCLOSE Act, officially killing all speculation that they might buck their party and vote for the campaign finance bill that reformers hoped might tug at their heartstrings.

Without them, there’s no chance of reaching the 60 votes necessary to overcome a Republican filibuster.

But Mother Jones points out, the defense authorization bill has about 3,500 other provisions — many of them important changes to the agenda for the Department of Defense.

It’s worth reading the full list, but here are a few notable provisions:

Revamping US Military and Foreign Policy

• No permanent military bases in Afghanistan.
• Report on long-term costs of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
• National Military Strategic Plan to Counter Iran.

Anti-Corruption

• Standards and certification for private security contractors.
• Inclusion of bribery in disclosure requirements of the Federal awardee performance and integrity information system.

Environmental Progress

• Report identifying hybrid or electric propulsion systems and other fuel-saving technologies for incorporation into tactical motor vehicles.

Senators said they will have to eventually pass the bill — it just may be in a lame duck session. The Senate has passed a defense authorization bill for the past 48 years.

“We have to proceed to consider the defense authorization bill, because our military needs it,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said yesterday. “We need it for authorization of critical military equipment for our troops to fight on our behalf. … We’ve got to take this bill up, it’s our national responsibility.”

It’s unlikely Harry Reid would again attempt to attach the DREAM Act to the bill, but the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell amendment will be an issue in the future. It was added by the Senate Armed Services Committee and is already a part of the defense authorization bill.

That does not mean the repeal would kill the bill in the future, though. Under different debate rules, Republicans could offer an amendment striking the repeal from the defense authorization bill. And it could find additional support: Some Republicans, such as Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) have said they would vote in support of the repeal, even though they voted to filibuster the bill moving to the Senate floor yesterday.

The grist for the graphic? Every Senate Republican has agreed to filibuster any bill renewing or making permanent the Bush tax cuts for middle-class families, while letting the cuts for high-income earners expire. The White House has proposed letting the top marginal rate rise from 35 to 39.6 percent for Americans making more than $250,000 a year as a household or $200,000 a year as an individual — about two percent of filers. That would save the country $700 billion in lost revenue.

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) supports the Obama plan, but might be forced to play chicken with the GOP if he wants to press for the tax increase on the two percent. If Congress passes nothing before Jan. 1 due to Senate filibusters, all of the tax cuts expire, including for low-income and middle-income earners. That is an outcome nobody wants.

More-moderate Democrats are also indicating their lack of support for the Obama plan, meaning it has no path through the Senate. (Democrats need every member of their caucus plus one Republican to overcome a Republican filibuster. As I wrote back in July, Democrats do not have reconciliation, which precludes a filibuster, on the table.)

Sens. Ben Nelson (Neb.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), who caucuses with the Democrats, have both come out against the Obama plan, among others. Here’s Lieberman, speaking today:

I don’t think it makes sense to raise any federal taxes during the uncertain economy we are struggling through. The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our economic recovery will be. And that means I will do everything I can to make sure Congress extends the so-called Bush tax cuts for another year and takes action to prevent the estate tax from rising back to where it was.

These cuts were originally passed at a time when the economy was strong. I supported most of them, but opposed a few of them because I thought we needed to pay the costs of the war we were fighting after 9-11, and we needed to stay out of debt. But now in our current economic situation, we cannot risk the economic headwinds that would be caused by tax increases. We need to keep as much money as possible in people’s pockets and business’s bank accounts.

I know that many people, including the President, have argued that the tax cuts should not be continued for people making more than $200,000 a year, but to me these are the people we need to be using their income to spend and invest to spur growth and job creation.

The fact is that the top three percent of American income earners account for 25% of the consumption in our economy. Remember consumer demand is still the major driver of economic growth in America. I want the top income earners in our country to have the confidence and the money to spend and invest over the next year, rather than worrying about paying more in taxes to the federal government.

In an interview, Voinovich said he could no longer support Republican efforts to delay the measure in hopes of winning the right to offer additional amendments. Most of the proposed GOP amendments “didn’t have anything to do with the bill” anyway, Voinovich said, and amounted merely to partisan “messaging.”

“We don’t have time for messaging,” Voinovich said. “We don’t have time anymore. This country is really hurting.”

Voinovich said he told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that, if a single amendment to reduce paperwork for business owners is considered on the floor, he would add his vote to that of the 59 senators who caucus with Democrats. That would give the majority party the 60 votes needed to overcome a possible GOP filibuster and approve the package when Congress returns to Washington next week.

The paid-for $55 billion bill offers $12 billion in tax breaks and creates a $30 billion fund to encourage small banks to lend to small businesses via the Small Business Administration. The Independent Community Bankers of America said the bill would create 500,000 jobs in two years.

Recently, President Barack Obama has hit at Republicans for blocking the legislation, which might create up to $300 billion in loans to small firms. “Simply put: holding this bill hostage is directly detrimental to our economic growth,” he said last month. “I ask Senate Republicans to drop the blockade. I know we’re entering election season. But the people who sent us here expect us to work together to get things done and improve this economy.”

“I support extending all of the expiring tax cuts until Nebraska’s and the nation’s economy is in better shape, and perhaps longer, because raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery,” Nelson said today.

Other moderate Democrats are coming out in opposition to the tax hikes, even on the wealthiest, in the House. For instance, Rep. Jim Himes (Conn.) supports an extension because $250,000 a year “does not make you really rich.” (Maybe not in Fairfield County, which Himes represents. It is one of America’s wealthiest counties, and has the highest concentration of hedge funds outside of Manhattan. If you wanted to, you could buy a house like this.) But, only about two percent of filers make that much nationally.

If Democrats attempt to raise taxes on high-income Americans, a bill could founder in the Senate — and if Congress comes to no agreement on the tax cuts, they expire. That means income taxes revert to 2000 levels for everyone, hiking taxes even on low earners.