Video transcript
Sessão Deliberativa Extraordinária Presencial (AM nº 123/2020)
88 statements · 1 politicians · May 27, 2026
Statements by Kim Kataguiri. 88 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified. Topics: Work schedules, Labor policy, Legislative Process, Fiscal Reform.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
88 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
Mr. President, I do not lie and I will not lie to the worker.
- Against
About: end the 6-by-1 schedule
I will not take part in this farce and this theater, which wants to pretend that, with the approval of a text in the Constitution, the worker will start to work on a 5-by-2 schedule.
- Neutral
About: enshrine labor rights in the Constitution
This has already been done. That same populism was done 10 years ago, in the Dilma government, when she said that domestic workers would have their rights guaranteed because they would be enshrined in the Constitution.
- Neutral
About: promote professional qualification and formalization of informal workers
But, 10 years later, what happened? An increase in informal employment.
- Ambiguous
About: end the 6-by-1 schedule
Am I in favor of ending the 6-by-1 schedule?
About: end the 6-by-1 schedule
Obviously. Who is against the worker having time to study, having time to be with their family, having time to take care of their children, having leisure time?
- Against
About: reduce the workweek to 5 days via a constitutional amendment
No one is against that, obviously. Now, I will not lie to the worker by saying that because it is written in the Constitution the schedule will be 5-by-2, and that, in practical terms, this will happen.
- Against
About: reduce the workweek to 5 days via a constitutional amendment
I will not do that, because it is a lie.
- Neutral
About: approve the proposed constitutional amendment that alters working hours
And the majority of you who will vote for this PEC and will approve this PEC — and I will be defeated — know this.
About: end the 6-by-1 schedule
Actually, the best scenario for me would be not to have a transition at all; it would be to start now.
- Against
About: reduce the workweek to 5 days via a constitutional amendment
The sooner it starts, the sooner people will know that it is a sham, that their lives have not changed, have not improved, and that they will not work less.
- Ambiguous
About: end the 6-by-1 schedule
Do you want to make the worker work less and earn more?
About: reduce taxes with measures to offset revenue loss
Cut spending, cut taxes. You, worker, until tomorrow, May 28, all the working days you worked were to pay taxes.
- Neutral
About: reduce taxes with measures to offset revenue loss
Not a single day, until tomorrow, did you work for your own sustenance, for your family; you didn't even work for your boss.
- Neutral
About: reduce taxes with measures to offset revenue loss
For 3 days a week, you don't work for yourself, you don't work for your employer, you work for the Government.
- Neutral
About: improve the country's economic productivity
The Government wants to invert the game to hide its own incompetence, the failure that our productivity increased 18% while in other emerging countries it rose 130% over the past 20 years, to put the bill on the employer, as if he were the villain who wants you to work six days a week.
About: reduce privileges and excessive public spending
They present this constitutional amendment proposal when the real discussion is: when will we stop working 3 days a week just to pay the Government's bill, just to pay judges' and prosecutors' supersalaries, just to pay Deputies' privileges.
About: reduce privileges and excessive public spending
I proposed cutting the elite in the Legislative, the Executive, the Judiciary and the Public Ministry — fewer than 30 Deputies signed.
- Neutral
About: reduce privileges and excessive public spending
When it's time to cut into their own flesh to bring benefits to the worker, no Deputy supports it, very few support it.
- Neutral
About: approve populist proposals to gain votes
Now, when it comes to populism and demagoguery, we'll have 450 votes on the panel.
- Against
About: grant tax incentives and local content policies for industry
Mr. President, Party Mission directs "no", first because this is a very poorly designed public policy to grant a tax privilege that won't have any analysis for national benefit.
- Against
About: grant temporary tax privileges without evaluation
Moreover, all the tax privileges that are said to be temporary, in the end become permanent without any review to see if they worked well, if they in fact brought sovereignty, if they in fact brought national fertilizer production to a competitive level.
- Against
About: require local content in fertilizer production as a condition for tax benefits
Another point is the local content policy aspect that this fertilizer production is bringing in the rapporteur's latest text, which was changed at the last minute, bringing this aspect as well, to which we are absolutely opposed.
- Against
About: grant tax incentives and local content policies for industry
So it seems to me a sectoral benefit without republican concern for the Country; it seems to me a sectoral benefit that will have no analysis regarding its efficiency, its effectiveness or whether its purpose was achieved.
- Against
About: grant tax waivers on the order of R$ 800 billion
And it seems once again a benefit that we create now to be temporary, but that will always be extended, prolonged over the years, until it never ends. PARTY MISSION directs "no".
- Against
About: create rigid budget earmarking by law to finance specific policies
Mr. President, Party Mission directs "no". We already have a budget that is 92% mandatory spending, and here another mandatory expense is being created, not by the Constitution, but by infraconstitutional legislation.
About: increase the Executive's decision-making power over the budget
The Executive needs to have Executive power. It's only in Brazil that we live this budgetary schizophrenia, in which the Executive Branch decides less than half of where the budget goes.
- Against
About: create rigid budget earmarking by law to finance specific policies
And are we going to lock in even more spending?
- Against
About: establish ongoing mandatory spending by law
Even if there is an agreement with the Government to limit the amount to be sent in the PLOA, we are still positivizing, we are putting into law that we will have an ongoing, mandatory expense. Hence our opposing position, Mr. President.
- Against
About: reduce the workweek to 5 days via a constitutional amendment
Mr. President, once again I say what I said earlier: I will not deceive the worker, as most of this Plenary unfortunately will do.
- Against
About: reduce the workweek to 5 days via a constitutional amendment
I will not lie to the worker by telling him that, with the approval of this proposed constitutional amendment, the 6-for-1 schedule will end.
- Against
About: reduce the workweek to 5 days via a constitutional amendment
I will not lie to the worker by telling him that, as a result of a change in the text of the Federal Constitution, after 60 days or after 1 year, he will no longer work the 6-for-1 schedule.
- Against
About: apply an easy, populist solution to working hours
This is an easy and populist solution that does not apply in practice.
They can insult me today, they can make me lose the election today, I can be execrated today, but when a year passes, and the amendment comes into effect, and the worker realizes he is working the same six days and that his life did not improve in the slightest, I will make a point of reminding people that I was one of the few who had the courage to speak the truth in the chamber.
About: reduce privileges and excessive public spending
The solution is much harder, much tougher, and involves confrontations that this Parliament does not have the courage to undertake.
- Neutral
About: reduce taxes with measures to offset revenue loss
Today the worker works 3 days a week just to pay taxes.
About: increase investment in infrastructure, skills training, and science and technology
This is a discussion the Parliament does not have. If there were that material change in our economy, the worker would work less while receiving more, not the same.
About: reduce government spending
But to cut taxes it is necessary to cut spending, and Deputies do not want to have that discussion.
About: eliminate tax privileges for large companies
Deputies do not have the courage to face the 200 billion reais in tax privileges that go to large businessmen who have influence, who pay many people's campaigns that get them into this Parliament, who get them into the Planalto (Presidential Palace).
- Neutral
About: eliminate tax privileges for large companies
They don't have the courage to face that difficult debate.
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology