WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- After months of efforts to craft a bipartisan bill, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd plans to introduce a revised version of sweeping bank reform legislation on Monday, most likely without Republican support. 
 
 Dodd had hoped to release a bipartisan bill, after working furiously with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., to reach a solution. However, Dodd said that time was running out to pass a bill in 2010. 
 
 "There isn't a lot of time left to complete bank reform this year," Dodd said to reporters at a news conference. "The real problem I'm facing is that clock." 
 
 At a separate news conference, a visibly disappointed Corker said that he and Dodd, along with other members of the committee, were extremely close to completing a bipartisan bill, coming to agreements on dozens of controversial areas such as how much power to award a new regulator for consumer protection of mortgage and credit card products. 
 
 Corker said the lawmakers had been "on the five-yard line" when it came to completing the reform, but that Dodd told him he was under pressure by the White House to wrap up efforts to complete bank reform quickly in the committee so that Congress can take steps it needs to pass health care legislation, also languishing on Capitol Hill. 
 
 "There is no question that White House politics and health care have kept us from getting to the goal line," Corker said to reporters. "The fact of the matter is, he is a victim of health care policy. We're still almost there but it looks like we're not going to get there." 
 
 Dodd plans to have the 22 senators on the committee vote on the bill during the week of March 22, after which it could be quickly considered on the Senate floor some time in the Spring. 
 
 Not enough time? 
 
 In his news conference, Corker also criticized Dodd's plan to have the banking committee begin and complete its review of the bank bill in one week. 
 
 "This is a very important bill and I cannot imagine a committee member, Republican or Democrat, passing a bill with this kind of substance in it in a week," Corker said. "I think that would be a travesty. If senators can pass a bill of this substance in a week, which has so much in it, then the states that elect them might as well send robots to Washington." 
 
 In response, Dodd said that he needs to set time-posts, otherwise nothing would get done. He acknowledged, however that his timeline of having members of the committee vote on the bill in a week, could slip. "It is more important to get this right than getting it done but I emphasize again, I don't have a lot of time left in this Congress." 
 
 However, Corker said Dodd, Republicans and Democrats had agreed to a number of areas, including a new structure for a consumer protection division, new heightened liability for credit raters and additional oversight for payday lenders and other lenders. 
 
 Dodd and other Democrats have sought to create a powerful consumer financial protection agency that could write rules for mortgages and credit cards. However, Republicans have sought to have a bank regulator have veto power over any rules the new consumer advocate would write. 
 
 Corker said Dodd and he had come to an agreement to allow a group of five agencies, the Treasury, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Fed, Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, have veto power over consumer rules the division would write if a majority of the agencies agreed it was a problematic rule. 
 
 Both sides also agreed to let bank regulators enforce the rules put in place by the consumer unit. 
 
 "We have come to a very good balance," Corker said. 
 
 However, Dodd declined to comment about whether it was that structure he would ultimately agree to. Dodd also denied reports assertions that he might try to split the bill into two pieces and first move forward on portions he could find broad consensus on. 
 
 "To do this in pieces would be impossible in the Senate," Dodd said. 
 
 Disagreements still abound 
 
 Republicans and Democrats on the committee disagree on a number of other areas. 
 
 Case in point: Dodd and other Democrats have installed a series of shareholder empowering provisions in the bank reform bill that Corker and others are opposed to. 
 
 "That's a line in the sand," Corker said. 
 
 The bill is expected to include provisions that would make it easier for investors to nominate a minority slate of directors onto corporate boards using corporate proxy cards, which are papers filed to investors. Another provision gives investors a non-binding vote on pay packages given to executives, while they are heading the corporations, and the golden parachutes they receive when they leave firms. 
 
 Republicans are trying to remove all of these measures, arguing they empower labor unions and environmentalist investor groups in behind-the-scenes conversations at the expense of shareholder value. 
 
 "Proxy access was going to be an issue," Corker said. "We agreed to look at some governance issues however this shareholder provision concerns us greatly because it involves giving activist investor groups too much power." 
 
 Corker also said Sens. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Judd Gregg, R-N.H., had been still working on crafting bipartisan derivatives legislation before Dodd decided to bring the bill to a vote. The two sides were working on how much of an exemption to give end users of derivatives, such as manufacturers, from transparency and trading requirements. The bill requires that most derivatives transactions go through transparent clearinghouses, which are intermediaries between buyers and sellers. ||||| Senate Republicans took what they could get. 
 
 With bipartisan negotiations at an impasse and Democrats pledging to force votes until they relented, Republicans ended their standoff Wednesday over a financial regulatory reform bill, agreeing to allow a debate to begin on the politically popular measure. 
 
 Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee, walked from the negotiations after deciding that Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) would make no further concessions on the scope and powers of a new consumer protection agency. 
 
 Dodd was under pressure from the Democratic caucus to not weaken the bill in any significant way, believing that there was no need to do so. The politics of the issue were so lopsided in their favor that Republicans would eventually have to fold without much to show for it, Democrats believed. 
 
 And by late Wednesday – after three days of negative headlines and an 11-hour grilling Tuesday of Goldman Sachs executives by frustrated senators – Republicans backed down. They won a few concessions, most notably the removal of a $50 billion industry-financed fund to wind down doomed companies. But not the kind of sweeping changes that would appear to move the bill significantly in their direction. 
 
 The standoff ended with a whimper, as Republicans agreed to proceed to the bill on a voice vote, declining an opportunity to put their position on the record. 
 
 “We've done what we've set out to do,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). “We spent three days, tried to give Shelby some time, had a degree of success and now it's time to move to the bill. There's unanimity. Nobody expressed a dissenting—not a single person expressed a dissenting view to that.” 
 
 Democrats claimed victory, but they face a perilous week or two as the Senate debates the measure. 
 
 "It's time for Wall Street to come out of the shadows and out into the light of day,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). “And it's time for negotiations to come out of the back room and onto the Senate floor. . . .It's time to put an end to obstruction and begin working for American families, so I'm glad that we're finally now on this bill." 
 
 As they move forward, Democrats still need to resolve internal differences over a section of the bill regulating derivatives, the risky financial instruments that contributed to the economic crisis. The bill goes farther than the administration and the Federal Reserve wants in requiring financial firms to spin off their derivatives trading operations – regulation that could mean loss of billions of dollars in revenue for big Wall Street firms. 
 
 By striking the $50 billion fund, senators will need to find a way to make up for that lost revenue to ensure the bill is deficit neutral. 
 
 Reid and Dodd have also promised a more free-flowing amendment process than was allowed during the health care reform debate. Both Democrats and Republicans are preparing hundreds of amendments, some of which could be viewed as poison pills that threaten passage. Progressives are expected to propose a series of populist initiatives that could prove politically-difficult to defeat. 
 
 And Democrats may need to craft a compromise at some point to assuage Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who voted with Republicans to block debate on the bill, expressing concern about a provision that would require companies such as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway to put up billions of dollars as collateral on existing derivatives contracts. ||||| Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 WASHINGTON — With political pressure mounting, Senate Republicans relented on Wednesday and agreed to let Democrats open debate on legislation that would impose the most far-reaching overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system since the aftermath of the Depression. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 The decision by Republicans to allow floor deliberations came after they voted three days in a row to block the bill, and it suggested that they saw political peril in being depicted as impeding tougher rules for Wall Street. 
 
 But Republicans still oppose many aspects of the bill, and a rough floor fight lies ahead. 
 
 Senate Republicans still control enough votes to filibuster and prevent the bill from being adopted. 
 
 President Obama praised the shift in the Senate at a rally in Quincy, Ill., and later in a rare chat with reporters on the plane back to Washington. “I want to work with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to move this legislation,” Mr. Obama said at the rally, adding, “What I don’t want is a deal made that is written by financial industry lobbyists.” 
 
 Photo 
 
 Before the logjam broke, Democrats on Wednesday threatened to keep the Senate in session overnight to dramatize the Republican opposition. 
 
 Republicans said they decided to move forward after talks broke down between leaders of the Banking Committee and it was clear they would win no further changes before debate. 
 
 At about 6:15 p.m., the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, requested the unanimous consent of the Senate to begin debate, and there was no objection from the Republican side. 
 
 “Now let’s get to work,” Mr. Reid said. “And let’s do the utmost to make the American people proud of our efforts.” He added, “Wall Street needs reforming.” 
 
 While the Republicans can still filibuster, they are at a disadvantage during floor debate given the Democrats’ 59 to 41 majority. And the decision to allow floor debate appeared to be a significant retreat by the minority, reflecting a calculation that further delay was politically untenable. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Among the challenges for Republicans was explaining how they could participate in an oversight hearing on Tuesday criticizing Goldman Sachs executives and proclaiming the need to tighten regulation of Wall Street, but then go to the Senate chamber and vote to block debate of the financial regulatory bill. 
 
 In an uneasy appearance on Wednesday morning on the “Today” show on NBC, Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, a centrist who is known for working across party lines, faced a series of tough questions on that issue. Later in the day, Ms. Collins was among the first Republicans to say it was time to open debate. “Negotiations have concluded,” she said. “It makes sense to proceed to the floor.” 
 
 The Republicans met late Wednesday afternoon to discuss the financial regulatory legislation and the steps ahead, and they defended their blocking maneuvers, saying it had helped secure assurances that changes would be made to the legislation, particularly in a chapter on liquidating failing companies. 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Advertisement Continue reading the main story 
 
 Democrats, however, said that they had made no firm commitments other than to take up Republican concerns during floor debate, where amendments on any controversial issue typically require 60 votes to be approved. 
 
 In particular, Republicans said they had won the elimination of a proposed $50 billion fund that would be paid for by big financial companies and would be used to help pay for putting failed banks out of business. 
 
 The Obama administration also had opposed the fund, out of concern that it would complicate efforts to deal with more costly bank failures. And the Democrats had already indicated a willingness to remove the fund from the bill. 
 
 Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the senior Republican on the Banking Committee, said that his efforts to negotiate important changes to the bill had mostly fallen apart. And he raised particular complaints with a provision to create a new consumer protection bureau that he said would be too powerful. 
 
 Photo 
 
 “I believe we owed the American people our best effort to make whatever changes we could to this incredibly complex piece of legislation, because it will have wide-ranging implications for our economy,” Mr. Shelby said in a statement. 
 
 The legislation is intended as a comprehensive answer by Congress to the 2008 economic crisis, which required a $700 billion emergency government rescue and taxpayer-financed bailouts for Wall Street powerhouses. 
 
 The House approved its version of a financial regulatory overhaul in December, and any legislation adopted by the Senate would have to be reconciled with that measure. 
 
 Floor debate is expected to begin in earnest on Thursday and last at least two weeks, and lawmakers in both parties are likely to bring forward a long list of amendments. Several Republicans have expressed concerns about overregulation that could stifle the economy, while some liberal Democrats contend that the bill is not tough enough on Wall Street. 
 
 The bill, developed in months of talks between senators in both parties, would touch virtually every aspect of the financial system. 
 
 It would authorize the government to shut down a financial institution deemed to pose a threat to the stability of the nation’s banking system and securities markets, and it would establish a consumer protection bureau intended to end predatory lending practices by, among other things, requiring that consumers receive detailed information on mortgages and other financing. 
 
 It would provide new oversight of hedge funds and impose tough rules on the trading of derivatives, the complex instruments at the center of the crisis. 
 
 Republicans, in blocking debate, said there were numerous problems in the Democrats’ legislation — including the omission of provisions dealing with the government mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and problems with specific language. 
 
 But the Republicans won no guarantees of concessions on any of these matters. 
 
 Still, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader, said that the delay had highlighted his party’s concerns, which he said he hoped would be addressed during floor debate. And he praised the Republicans and the lone Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who had voted to block debate, saying they had provided an opportunity to improve the bill. 
 
 Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the Banking Committee, said he would work to make sure senators in both parties could offer amendments to the bill, of which he is the prime sponsor. “It’s time for this debate to begin,” Mr. Dodd said in a statement. “And it must be a serious, vigorous debate.” 
 
 But Mr. Dodd, in his statement, also accused Mr. Shelby of seeking to weaken provisions in the bill to create a consumer protection bureau. 
 
 “I cannot agree to his desire to weaken consumer protections given the enormous abuses we have seen,” Mr. Dodd said. 
 
 Both sides said they expected an intense floor debate. “It’s a pretty big bill, and it has got a lot of complexities,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, who helped draft the legislation on the banking committee. “This may be a real debate, which might shock America.”
– Chris Dodd is preparing to introduce a sweeping bank reform bill on Monday in the Senate without any Republican support. The move comes after months of negotiations with the GOP's Bob Corker, who said the two were on the "5-yard-line" before Dodd got pressure from the White House to push a bill out of committee before a health care vote. Says Dodd: "There isn't a lot of time left to complete bank reform this year. The real problem I'm facing is that clock." Corker said "there's no question that White House politics and health care have kept us from getting to the goal line," reports MarketWatch. Assuming Dodd and Corker don't patch up remaining differences quickly about the legislation, which is to include tougher consumer protections, Democrats could face a filibuster on the Senate floor, reports the Wall Street Journal.