Video transcript
Sessão Deliberativa Extraordinária Presencial (AM nº 123/2020)
52 statements · 1 politicians · June 16, 2026
Statements by Kim Kataguiri. 52 transcribed statements, with topic and stance on the ones the analysis classified. Topics: Bar Association / Legal Institutions, Central Bank Independence, Legislative Process, Public Management.
Speakers
Click any statement beside the video to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Transcript
52 statementsFull transcript of the video. Statements the analysis classified carry topic and stance.
Mr. President, I will reinforce Deputy Luiz Nishimori's invitation, who is my veteran here — I joke that Deputy Nishimori is senpai, my teacher, my sensei here in this House.
So, I would like to invite you to the celebration tomorrow of the 118th anniversary of Japanese immigration.
Deputy Luiz Nishimori said that afterwards he will buy a barrel of sake — it will be free — for everyone who participates.
Everyone is invited. It will be tomorrow at 9 o'clock.
- Against
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
Mr. President, Members of the Chamber, I want to express my concern and speak here with the Rapporteur regarding this bill, which has caused much controversy and deals with increasing the powers of the Advocacia-Geral da União, especially of its head, Mr. Jorge Messias.
- Neutral
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
Several prosecutors, especially those linked to the Central Bank and to the autarchies, have expressed the view that this is a centralization of power in the hands of Jorge Messias and even an attempt to increase his powers, possibly to pave the way for his appointment to the STF, as an official note says.
- Neutral
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
This also has precedents, Rapporteur. There was an attempt, initially in debates in the 1988 Constituent Assembly and later in a ruling on a writ of injunction, in which the Supreme Court would have recognized, despite the evident link, the non-subordination and non-absorption of the careers of the federal prosecutors by the Advocacia-Geral da União.
- Neutral
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
I saw earlier today, also in a report in Folha de S.Paulo, that there is concern that the AGU itself could take upon itself decisions involving the Central Bank.
About: guarantee the independence of the Advocacia-Geral da União from the Executive
I also bring a recent history of the use of influence, the use of the political power of the President of the Republic in relation to the Attorney General of the Union, for him to pressure changes in decisions and changes in legal opinions at the Ministry of Mines and Energy.
About: maintain Central Bank autonomy
There would also be an intervention in the autonomy of the Central Bank, when we know that, fortunately, today we have an autonomous Central Bank, with the freedom to act and the freedom to supervise.
- Neutral
About: maintain Central Bank autonomy
It is no coincidence that, in a scandal involving the most powerful authorities of the Republic — left, right, center, from the Supreme Federal Tribunal — the Central Bank of Brazil still had the autonomy to initiate the liquidation of a bank that involved tens of billions of reais in corruption scandals and involved such powerful people.
- Against
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
So, in this dialogue with the Rapporteur, Deputy Lafayette, whom I respect, and given these concerns that have been raised, I request that this bill be withdrawn from the agenda.
- Neutral
About: approve bill in the Constitution and Justice Committee before the Plenary
I understand that it was approved by a large majority, both from the Left and from the Right, in the Constitution and Justice Committee.
I am not a member of the Committee, so I could not vote.
About: remove from the agenda the bill that expands powers of the Advocacia-Geral da União
But I think the Plenary should address this matter with a bit more calm, with a bit more serenity, so that everyone understands the repercussions of this text, why, on the one hand, there is an interest in selling it as a modernization of the careers within the Advocacia-Geral da União and, on the other hand, resistance from the very civil servants who will be affected by this legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
- Against
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
Mr. President, I really continue to view the text with great suspicion, first because I would not see so much pressure from the Attorney General of the Union if it were only a formal restructuring.
- Against
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
If there were no material change, there would not be this political pressure for this matter to move forward.
- Neutral
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
The main argument used here is the following: there is no real change, nothing will change in reality, all bodies that are already subordinated to the Advocacia-Geral da União will remain subordinated.
- Against
About: grant more powers to the Attorney General's Office (AGU)
I very much doubt there would be this political mobilization around this matter if it were going to change nothing.
- Against
About: reduce the autonomy of autarchies and regulatory agencies
What worries me is the possibility of reducing the autonomy of the autarchies, the autonomy of the regulatory agencies, the autonomy of the Central Bank and, at the same time, granting superpowers so that the Attorney General of the Union can take upon himself cases that should not fall within his competence, that should not be within his remit, because of the political influence to which he is subject. So, we recommend "no."
- Against
About: approve projects without impact estimates and without a funding source
Mr. President, the Missão Party opposes it, first, because it is a proposal that lacks an impact estimate, which is a requirement for all proposals that are processed in this House; second, because it has no source of funding, and I think this is the most important point, because we would be benefiting one sector without knowing which sector we would be harming.
- Against
About: approve projects without impact estimates and without a funding source
Thus, there is noncompliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Law, noncompliance with art. 103 of the ADCT and noncompliance with the Budget Guidelines Law itself.
- Against
About: extend or create new tax benefits without impact assessment
I am a little alarmed that the Government's base is in favor, because the Government itself says it is against extending or creating new tax benefits without an impact assessment, without being rigorous about it.
- Against
About: vote on bills without impact estimates
Yet the base is voting without an impact estimate, without a revenue source, and later appeals to President Hugo Motta to hold bombshell agendas when the Government itself does its work. So, Missão recommends "no."
- Against
About: equate procedural priority of racial crimes to that of homicide, rape, femicide and robbery-homicide
Mr. President, MISSÃO recommends "no," because, despite the positive aspects of the bill — maybe we can discuss that in the report — I do not find it reasonable to equate it in prioritization.
- Neutral
About: maintain procedural priority for crimes such as femicide, rape, homicide and robbery-homicide
Today, the crimes that have priority in the Justice system are femicide, rape, homicide, robbery-homicide.
- Against
About: equate procedural priority of racial crimes to that of homicide, rape, femicide and robbery-homicide
Placing racial crimes in that same category...
About: apply harsher penalties for racial crimes
I have no doubt that racism is a very serious crime and that the person who commits it should be punished with severe penalties.
- Against
About: equate procedural priority of racial crimes to that of homicide, rape, femicide and robbery-homicide
Now, placing it in the Justice system — already clogged with cases, as we have today — with the same degree, the same quality, the same gravity as the serious crimes that are already prioritized?
- Against
About: create rigid budget earmarking by law to finance specific policies
Regarding the other point, the budgetary appropriation, Brazil also has many serious problems, and each municipality, each state and the Union itself need to understand which measures are most urgent to take, without us creating any kind of rigid budgetary linkage or prioritization enshrined in law. Our recommendation is "no."
About: prevent statute of limitations on sentences for convicts who remain fugitives
Mr. President, regarding this bill, I think the law should already be like this.
Unfortunately, if we were to explain this to the people out there, it would be incomprehensible.
- Neutral
About: prevent statute of limitations on sentences for convicts who remain fugitives
Today, in the case of a convict who escapes from prison — it has already been proven that he committed a crime, the sentence has already become final — if he remains at large for a sufficient amount of time, the crime prescribes, that is, the State loses the right to punish that criminal, because too much time has passed from the moment he committed that crime, from the moment the right to punish him was secured, until the moment of that punishment.
About: prevent statute of limitations on sentences for convicts who remain fugitives
So, Mr. President, this is a reasonable bill. I even believe that we will achieve something very rare in this House, which is approval by unanimity, because it is reasonable.
At the Leaders' Meeting, Deputy Tarcísio said that I could count on PSOL's vote on the urgency of this matter, because not even PSOL, which is this House's bastion of due-process protections, would be opposed.
Deputy Tarcísio is saying that if I speak too much, he will change his position — hold on.
I will stop talking because I will count on your support.
I like to say that, when it comes to a consensual matter, we have support from NOVO to PSOL, as will be the case with this matter.
Just to explain: the person escapes from the prison facility, has already been convicted, and depending on the crime he committed, if he remains at large long enough, outside the hands of the State, the State loses the right to punish him.
About: prevent statute of limitations on sentences for convicts who remain fugitives
Therefore, the victim herself and all those who were harmed by that crime have to live with the injustice of seeing a person who, having been proven to have committed a crime, escaped from prison and, by having escaped, is rewarded with the right not to be punished anymore.
AI classification from the transcript of a public video. See the Methodology