GOP advances proposal to change Senate rules

Republicans are advancing a proposal to change the Senate’s rules to speed up consideration of President TrumpDonald John TrumpBrennan fires new shot at Trump: ‘He’s drunk on power’ Trump aides discussed using security clearance revocations to distract from negative stories: report Trump tried to dissuade Melania from 'Be Best' anti-bullying campaign: report MORE’s nominees.

The Senate Rules and Administration Committee on a party-line 10-9 vote passed a resolution on Wednesday from Sen. James LankfordJames Paul LankfordHillicon Valley: Trump escalates feud with intel critics | Tesla shares fall after troubling Musk interview | House panel considers subpoena for Twitter's Jack Dorsey | Why Turkish citizens are breaking their iPhones Hillicon Valley: FBI fires Strzok after anti-Trump tweets | Trump signs defense bill with cyber war policy | Google under scrutiny over location data | Sinclair's troubles may just be beginning | Tech to ease health data access | Netflix CFO to step down House Intel lawmakers introduce bipartisan election security bill MORE (R-Okla.) that would substantially cut down on the amount of debate time needed for hundreds of nominations.

Because Republicans have a one-seat advantage on the committee, they were able to pass the proposal without any support from Democrats.

ADVERTISEMENT

Republicans say the change is necessary because Democrats are using the Senate’s rulebook to slow-walk Trump’s picks.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnellAddison (Mitch) Mitchell McConnellSen. Warner to introduce amendment limiting Trump’s ability to revoke security clearances The Hill's 12:30 Report Rand Paul to ask Trump to lift sanctions on Russian leaders MORE (R-Ky.), a member of the committee, said Democats are “wasting the Senate’s time” by dragging out debate time even as lawmakers aren’t actively debating.

“At some point the question is what is a constructive use of the Senate’s time,” he said ahead of the vote.

The proposal is similar to a resolution that passed with bipartisan support in 2013, but only governed the 113th Congress. Democrats were in control of the chamber at the time.

Nominations face up to an additional 30 hours of debate time even after they’ve cleared an initial vote that shows they have the simple majority support needed to pass.

Lankford’s proposal would cut that debate time down from 30 hours to eight hours. It would further cap post-cloture debate time for district court nominations at two hours.

The proposal does have major exemptions: Most Cabinet-level nominees, as well as Supreme Court nominees and circuit court nominees, would still be subjected to the full 30 hours of debate.

The resolution now goes to the full Senate. Republicans could pass the rules change with as few as 60 votes, but that would still require the support of at least nine Democrats.

A group of GOP senators want leadership to go “nuclear” to implement the rules change, a procedure that would let Republicans change the rules with only a simple majority and without the support of Democrats.

McConnell hasn’t publicly weighed in on the option. And Republicans would have little room for error if they wanted to play hardball.

With Sen. John McCainJohn Sidney McCainThe Hill's 12:30 Report Senate gets to work in August — but many don’t show up Rand Paul’s Russia visit displays advancement of peace through diplomacy MORE (R-Ariz.) absent, their majority is effectively limited to 50 votes. Sen. Susan CollinsSusan Margaret CollinsWhite House weighs clawing back State, foreign aid funding The Hill's Morning Report: Dems have a majority in the Senate (this week) Overnight Defense: Pompeo creates 'action group' for Iran policy | Trump escalates intel feud | Report pegs military parade cost at M MORE (R-Maine) has previously said she opposes further changes to the Senate’s rules.

Democrats have publicly fumed over the proposal, accusing Republicans of being overly partisan and casting a “sour note” on unrelated, ongoing negotiations.

Sen. Amy KlobucharAmy Jean KlobucharHillicon Valley: Trump escalates feud with intel critics | Tesla shares fall after troubling Musk interview | House panel considers subpoena for Twitter's Jack Dorsey | Why Turkish citizens are breaking their iPhones The Hill's Morning Report — GOP seeks to hold Trump’s gains in Midwest states Tina Smith defeats former Bush ethics lawyer in Minnesota Dem primary MORE (D-Minn.) said before the vote on Wednesday that the “circumstances were very different [in 2013] than they are today.”

“I feel this is not the right moment to make this permanent change,” she said.