OK, I figured that's what you meant.   In theory, the Senate can always amend its rules, but the 2/3 majority it takes to do so after the opening day of the new Congress makes highly improbable that it can/will be done.


I forgot one other amendment I would add to the filibuster reform.
Not sure exactly how this would be worded, because if a Senator truly wants the debate on an issue to be extended (as opposed to just saying "I'm filibustering" or standing there and reading from the phone book), it's reasonable that such a Senator might vote against cloture but, if outvoted, go ahead and vote FOR the bill when the vote is called.

What needs to be prevented is the obstructionism-qua-obstructionism tactic of joining a passive, debate-free "filibuster" to prevent a vote on a nominee or bill that you actually support (or at least want your constituents to think you support). It has happened all too often over the past 2 years that a bill or nomination is "filibustered," but when the Democrats finally garnered 60 votes to bring the issue up for a vote, the bill passes or the nomination is confirmed by an overwhelming majority, including many who had tried to prevent the vote.


So I would propose that:
If the "filibuster" does not actually involve extending debate on an issue, and the filibuster continues for more than a week or two (the time it might take to do some research on the issue), no Senator who formally opposed the cloture motion should be allowed to vote "Yea" on the bill.

In other words, you can't just try to obstruct the agenda of the President or the majority party in Congress because you want the public to see them as incompetent failures, but then try to jump on the bandwagon of the successes they do have and try to take credit for supporting what you tried your best to derail.