After thirty hours of general discussion of the omnibus bill which lasted for three days last week, the deputies from different spaces want to speed up the process and now The first intersections arose regarding the best methodology to achieve the double objective: speed up times and approve the law.
“Mr. President, there are 525 articles, just voting takes three minutes, it takes 26 hours of voting, a whole day of voting, and if we multiply by 10 minutes of the speakers, we have 15,750 minutes, that is 262 hours. “It’s ten days of voting,” raised Emilio Monzoa member of the We Make Federal Coalition bloc and with extensive legislative experience, especially due to his status as former head of the Lower House.
The proposal of Carlos Tejedor’s representative had to do with the initial scheme proposed by LLA deputy Gabriel Bornoroni: reading one by one the articles of the majority opinion to be discussed, even when they have not had any modification with respect to the version issued by the plenary of commissions.
Emilio Monzó and Maximiliano Ferraro
During much of the debate that took place last week, the legislators of Unión por la Patria led by Germán Martínez They demanded to know the definitive text of the regulations, that never came in the face of the difficulties of the ruling party to gather consensus and close a final version.
“Let us understand that it is impossible to conduct the session in this way, let us save time, the paragraphs that are not going to be modified will not be read, otherwise we will be here for 10 days and the law will not come out”Monzó insisted.
In that sense, the president of the Chamber Martín Menem agreed to make a modification in the way of approaching the treatment of the law, which also included changes when voting. The requirement that predominated was that of a roll-call vote, that is, with a record of the election of each of the legislators, and not by show of hands as LLA initially wanted.
left block
Deputy Juan Marino, from UxP, also reiterated the question that there was no printed opinion, although Menem immediately crossed him to explain that this issue had already been resolved with the agreement between the spaces to read the changes in each article and rebuked him.: “It’s a problem that only you see.”
Another of the methodological debates was around the voting by chapters and articles on certain sensitive topics and there arose a request from radicalism so that not only the articles but also each of the subsections that compose it be discussed in particular, in especially in the section of the delegations of powers, where the final number is very “fine”.
Precisely, the concern had to do with section H of article 4 of the delegation of powers, which allows the modification of trust funds or trusts that involve the different provinces and which, as highlighted by representative Carla Carrizo, is not in All cases have to be eliminated and they must be dealt with on a case by case basis.