A year and a half ago, a steamroller like the one seen this week during the Congress was not seen. third debate of the pension reform in Commission VII of the House of Representatives.
(Also: After approval by majority, pension reform moves to the fourth and final debate in the plenary session of the Chamber)
In just three days – Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday – that legislative cell approved 95 articles and now, after passing the third debate and giving an air to the project that If it is not approved before June 20, it collapses due to lack of processing, two more rounds are coming: the fourth and final debate, in plenary, and the conciliation of the texts approved in the Senate and Chamber.
Gloria Inés Ramírez and Luis Fernando Velasco in the pension debate.
Photo:Sergio Acero. TIME
While the second debate in the Senate plenary was slow and the project was on the verge of sinking due to a single vote that was saved at the last minute by the Minister of the Interior, Luis Fernando Velasco, and the directors of National Planning and Social Prosperity, Alexander López and Gustavo Bolívar, a steamroller was consolidated in Commission VII of the Chamber.
The Executive had the support of its old allies and they did not even leave the opposition the possibility of delaying the debate by breaking the quorum. The Liberal, Conservative and ‘U’ parties accompanied the bulk of the articles, which allowed for an agile discussion, as the Casa de Nariño needed.
(You may be interested in: Steamroller? With the help of ‘the U’, liberals and conservatives advance the pension reform of the government of President Gustavo Petro)
The key votes
The pension reform was stalled for seven months in the Senate plenary session. But an agreement with the Liberal Party so that the threshold for contributing to Colpensiones – one of the most critical issues in the articles – was 2.3 current legal minimum wages and not 3 as the Government intended unblocked the discussion.
Thanks to the support of the majority of liberals, as well as a large sector of ‘the U’ and a conservative minority that made up a quorum, the project was approved.
But there were doubts about the procedure in the Chamber when President Petro himself, in a presidential address, insisted that the threshold should be 4 minimum wages. The legitimacy and compliance of the agreement with the liberals was questioned and the question arose as to whether another figure would be presented in the presentation for the third debate.
Martha Alfonso, representative of the Green Alliance
Photo:Martha Alfonso Press
Finally, the presentation filed did not have significant changes with the text approved in the Senate. The Government’s strategy was simple: not make major changes to facilitate the discussion.
(In context: ‘It would be irresponsible to insist on a 3-salary threshold’: Víctor Manuel Salcedo, speaker of the pension reform)
”I am of the idea of supporting President Gustavo Petro’s proposal. However, I am also a conscious, rational person of dialogue and I understand that taking it to four will be impossible because if today it is problematic to talk about 2.3, if it is already There was a first attempt of 4 and it was lowered to 2.3, well Raising it to 4 would almost be putting the reform on a silver platter for them to sink. “We have to try to achieve the greatest consensus so that the reform is approved,” said Congresswoman Alfonso, from Alianza Verde.
Likewise, respecting the agreement with the liberals was key to obtaining the support of the conservatives and ‘the U’.
”Progress has been made by finding middle ground, as has been the discussion of the threshold. Today with the 2.3 the ‘U’ party, liberal, and today here in the Chamber the Conservative Party supports that proposal (…) “I want to recognize Minister Gloria Inés Ramírez for the agreements and consensus she has had. This is how she achieved progress in the Senate. This is how she achieved that today in the Chamber we are discussing such an important reform for the country,” he stated during the meeting. discussion by liberal representative Héctor David Chaparro, who during the debate insisted on the need to respect that agreement.
We have to try for the greatest consensus so that the reform is approved
Historical Pact, Liberal Party, Conservative Party, ‘the U’, Green Alliance, Comunes and the peace seats (Citrep) voted positively while the Democratic Center and Cambio Radical voted negatively. The trend of the votes was, in the majority of articles, between 16 and 17 votes in favor of the Government against 4 negative.
(We invite you to visit: Pension reform: Government consolidates majorities for its third debate in the House of Representatives, will it be able to sustain them?)
The representative of the Democratic Center Andres Forero He told this newspaper that the strategy would not be to persuade the Government on points of honor, but rather to convince his colleagues on issues that were not so sensitive.
“We are going to raise the arguments above all on issues that are not a point of honor for the Government. We hope to be able to convince, above all, our colleagues. I see that the Government has possibly already carried out a concertation exercise with the opposition but yes with the parties that have historically supported him in the preparation of the presentation,” commented Forero.
Andrés Forero, representative of the Democratic Center
Photo:Sergio Acero. TIME
Thus, the liberal votes were conditional on compliance with the 2.3 agreement, while the votes of ‘the U’ were firm in the bulk of the articles, since This party did not entirely dislike the project, despite the fact that they had reservations about issues such as the threshold and validity. In fact, in the first debate Norma Hurtado, senator of Commission VII, was the coordinating speaker but then she broke away and presented her own text.
“At the threshold there was no agreement. The Government bench proposed 4, the Conservatives 2.3, the Liberals 2, the Greens 3 and I 1.5. Until then I said: I’ll leave a note and I could accompany What do I have to say? That while it is true that they included several of my proposals, at the critical points there are problems,” representative Víctor Manuel Salcedo, of ‘la U’, also acknowledged in an interview with EL TIEMPO.
Víctor Manuel Salcedo, representative to the Chamber for ‘la U’
Photo:Sergio Acero. TIME
EL TIEMPO consulted sources from the community, who said that in the Chamber no bench decision was made on how to vote on the project, so Yepes and Quevedo were not committing any irregularity if they supported the law that was filed in March 2023. But this newspaper established that there was discomfort in supporting the official initiative, since this decision goes against Cepeda’s multiple pronouncements.
Without major changes, the project was approved in that Commission. The threshold was maintained at 2.3 minimum wages while the entry into force, another sensitive issue, continued on July 1, 2025.
(In other news: ‘They removed me because they need jobs’: Francisco Ramírez, the director of Fonprecon who declared war on mega-pensions, speaks)
Lopera and Ramírez, keys in the approval
The role of the liberal María Eugenia Lopera as president of that corporation was fundamental for the initiative to move forward in just three days.
Although there were serious doubts about whether the congresswoman, who is part of the group of liberal dissident Julián Bedoya, close to the Casa de Nariño, was prepared to lead the debate. Finally, it carried out the appropriate pace according to the interests of the Government, despite the fact that the opposition speaks of a pushover.
“The country is disgusted and terrified to see how the dark pension reform is being discussed in the House of Representatives. Don’t forget that Gloria Inés Ramírez and Guillermo Jaramillo share characteristics: they are incompetent who are capable of the worst to approve Petro’s reforms,” said, for example, Enrique Gómez, leader of Salvación Nacional.
María Eugenia Lopera, liberal representative
Photo:Sergio Acero. TIME
Another key player was the Minister of Labor, Gloria Inés Ramírez. The minister was very active during the debate, she clarified doubts to the parliamentarians who were accompanying the project and even she found herself in dialogue with the opponents.
That was one of the main complaints of the speakers. They wanted to see active ministers, defending their reforms. Precisely Alfonso, who was in charge of the health reform, complained on several occasions about the absence of the Minister of Health, Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo, to carry out the project, which finally collapsed in the Senate ahead of its third debate.
“That the Government be very attentive to maintaining the majorities and agreements that it achieved from the Senate, that there be a minister and a president of Colpensiones empowered by its reform, helping, accompanying, technically assisting. “What happened with the health reform is that there was no such leadership, that the minister was not there to take care of its reform, speaking with the senators,” Alfonso warned before the start of the discussion.
Pension debate in Commission VII
Photo:Martha Alfonso Press
What’s coming for the pension reform?
The support of the liberals, who are the main group in the House of Representatives, would be guaranteed, as they have 33 seats. If the conservatives (there are 27) do not make a bench decision, it is likely that a good number of them will accompany, as would the majority of the Green Alliance, peace seats and ‘the U’. With these votes, added to those of the Historical and Common Pact, we could be talking about 100, which is enough for the initiative to be approved.
(Also: On June 12, Congress will elect the new Comptroller after a ruling by the Constitutional Court: this is what lies ahead for the process)
The opposition already has its strategies ready. One of them will be to cite political control debates and motions of censure. They know that the Government will consolidate majorities and their only path will be for the project to collapse due to lack of processing.
MATEO GARCÍA – POLITICAL EDITORIAL
EL TIEMPO is part of a conglomerate of companies to which an AFP belongs*
