Republicans are pushing forward with a proposal to speed up the Senate's consideration of President Trump Donald John TrumpOmar fires back at Trump over rally remarks: 'This is my country' Pelosi: Trump hurrying to fill SCOTUS seat so he can repeal ObamaCare Trump mocks Biden appearance, mask use ahead of first debate MORE's nominees.

A spokesman for Lankford confirmed that the proposal will get a vote.

Sen.(R-Mo.), the newly appointed chairman of the panel, has scheduled a vote on Lankford's resolution for

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee is expected to vote next week on a resolution from Sen.(R-Okla.) that would cut down on the amount of debate time for hundreds of Trump's picks.

Republicans have been privately mulling the rules change for more than a year, arguing that Democrats are using the Senate's rulebook to slow walk Trump's nominations.

Currently, a nomination has to have an additional 30 hours of debate time after clearing an initial procedural hurdle. The requirement allows opponents to stretch out consideration of one pick for days.

But Lankford's proposal would cut the debate time from 30 hours to eight hours after a nominee has cleared a procedural hurdle that shows they have the simple majority support needed to ultimately be confirmed.

It would go even further for district court nominees, capping the amount of post-cloture debate time at two hours.

The proposal would be similar to a provision from a 2013 resolution on limiting debate for most nominations. But that proposal only governed the 113th Congress. Democrats at the time held the majority in the Senate.

Democrats argue there's a key difference between the 2013 and approving such a proposal now: The Senate has gone "nuclear" on nominations.

What happens after the committee approves the rule change is unclear.

small group of conservative senators wants leadership to go "nuclear" and approve the change by only a simple majority.

If Republicans could get support from Democrats — potentially a herculean task in an election year — they could try to change the rules with either 67 or 60 votes, depending on the scenario.

"Privately, many Democrats realize this is a very bad precedent that could come back to bite them if and when they win back the White House," the Senate aide added.

Asked what happens on the Senate floor, Blunt demurred: "We'll see. We'll see."

Blunt hinted that Republicans could want to implement it as a standing order, adding they would see "what we might be able to do with 60 votes."

Lankford's resolution also includes some major exemptions to the rules change.Senate Democrats, led by then-Majority Leader(D-Nev.), nixed the 60-vote filibuster for executive nominations and lower-court nominations in 2013, arguing Republicans were stonewalling Obama’s court picks.Republicans, in turn, got rid of the 60-vote procedural hurdle for Supreme Court picks after Democrats rejected Trump’s Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch.