Six years after the U.S. housing market collapsed, a Senate banking committee has approved a long-sought change to home mortgage regulations that would make lenders – not taxpayers – the first to be tapped for a bailout if there’s another meltdown.

The measure – first developed by U.S. Sens. Mark Warner, a Virginia Democrat, and Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican – aims to prevent another expensive bailout. The previous collapse ended up costing taxpayers $190 billion.

The bill sent to the full Senate calls for reshaping the nation’s mortgage system to substantially reduce the government’s financial exposure, but keeps in place federal controls that require lenders to continue offering mortgages with the popular 30-year, fixed-rate home loan.

Although the bill has bipartisan support, Warner acknowledged Friday that time is running short this year as members of Congress become more preoccupied with re-election than legislation.

“We’re up against the clock,” said Warner, who has been working with Corker for almost two years on the changes. “Frankly I think the people of Virginia and America deserve a Congress that doesn’t have this view that we’re going to hold up everything until after the election.”

If enacted, the measure would slowly dissolve Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-run businesses that had owned or guaranteed many of the nation’s mortgages. It would instead set up the Federal Mortgage Insurance Corp. to regulate home loans and provide a government guarantee for mortgage bonds. Among the provisions is a requirement that mortgage bond purchasers pay a small fee to underwrite assistance for low-income homebuyers.

If mortgage bonds are in jeopardy, the financial institutions would be required to cover the first 10 percent of any losses rather than rely on taxpayers. The thinking is that if private firms are the first to lose money, they will be more vigilant against risky lending practices.

If such a system had been in place in 2008, Warner said, the 10 percent requirement would have been enough to cover double the cost of that bailout.

The proposal is backed by leaders of national associations of real estate brokers, homebuilders and banks.

Brad Schwartz, CEO of Monarch Bank in Chesapeake, said he supports the bill although it will likely increase the cost of mortgages.

He also is concerned that some senators might want to loosen credit standards for borrowers, which could lead to riskier loans. If that happens, he said, “I think we’ll be going down the wrong road.”

The legislation has drawn opposition from Wall Street hedge fund managers who don’t want Fannie and Freddie to be dissolved. The private investors were allowed to buy shares in the two entities, which had been placed in government conservatorship. Since 2008, Fannie and Freddie have made money, using most of their profits to pay back all the bailout funds.

The private shareholders are taking the Treasury Department to court, arguing they deserve a larger share of the profits, according to The Wall Street Journal. Some shareholders hope congressional gridlock could help lead to restructuring Fannie and Freddie as private companies, the newspaper reported.

Warner countered that taxpayers have yet to collect any interest or profit from the $190 billion used for the bailout.

A key to Senate passage will be making certain the bill is approved by a mix of Republicans and Democrats, he said. Legislators are particularly sensitive to major changes that might affect the housing market because it makes up 20 percent of the economy.

The legislation, which now is sponsored by the banking committee’s leaders – Sens. Tim Johnson, a South Dakota Democrat, and Mike Crapo, an Idaho Republican – has met some resistance from Democratic senators who want to include more assistance for low-income families.

“If a real bipartisan bill comes out of the Senate, then I think the House will have to take this up,” Warner said, because at the moment, the government remains on the hook if there’s another market collapse.

“If the taxpayers get hit again, they’re going to say ‘You had five years, why didn’t you fix this?’ ”