Much-heralded changes to US financial regulations are set for a significant rewrite in the Senate, as lawmakers weigh up alternatives to the Treasury's plan, according to one Congressional critic.

The Obama administration's proposals include giving the US Federal Reserve responsibility for identifying risks to the financial system, the consolidation of bank regulators and the creation of an agency to protect consumers.

They will all be debated, revised and, in some cases, shelved, according to Mark Warner, a member of the Senate banking committee.

"If there was ever an issue that should not break down on D [Democrat] versus R [Republican] lines it ought to be financial 'rereg'. There is no kind of conservative/liberal ideology," said Mr Warner in an interview with the Financial Times.

"And if there's one area where it seems like there has been real bipartisan agreement it has been in the reaction to the administration's proposals of further concentrating power to the Fed."

The administration plans to place new systemic risk regulation powers with the Fed; Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, argues that one body needs to be accountable. There will be a council of regulators to advise it but the Fed would be responsible for overseeing the largest financial companies. Mr Warner favours the council holding the power. "There are plenty of examples in American government where you have a group of interests that come together at a council level," he said, pointing to the Joint Chiefs of Staff as one.

The administration wants to merge the Office of Thrift Supervision into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Mr Warner wants to go much further, writing a comment article for the Financial Times last month to spell out his preference for a single regulator. He argued that the regulatory failure that preceded last year's financial crisis suggested that more streamlined supervision of banks was required.

The self-described "bipartisan radical centrist" and former telecommunications entrepreneur was elected last year as a Democrat senator to Virginia. That short tenure has not curbed his desire to change the shape of regulation, which was worked out by the Treasury and the House financial services committee, chaired by Barney Frank. Mr Warner suggested that there was doubt over the timing of the legislation, which the administration had pledged to pass this year. He had initially thought that while healthcare and energy policy might be delayed, the one thing to be passed this year was financial regulatory reform. "Now I'm already turning into a regular senator [my opinion has become]: 'Yeah, well . . . '"

But while the number and complexity of the reforms suggested that real reform might be delayed, co-operation and compromise were possible and failure would look bad, he said.

"It would be hard to say a year after the new administration's been in - even though the market's up 50 per cent - it would be hard to say we didn't at least close down some of the problems that created the recession and created the crisis in the first place," he said. Mr Warner was critical of the fact that, in bailing out AIG, the government paid par value to counterparties who entered into derivatives contracts with the insurer, sending billions to banks in the US and overseas.

"How come we as taxpayers got stuck with all this and we're paying 100 cents on the dollar to all the counterparties?" asked Mr Warner. He said the banks should have been forced to accept a haircut. "I may reluctantly agree that AIG had to be saved but it seems to me that the priority [was] given to the counterparties over taxpayer interests, debtholder interests and frankly I think we should have washed out more of the equity."