In a quick vote, lasting less than 10 seconds, held in what would be the last session of the year, the Chamber’s Urban Development Committee canceled on Wednesday (17) proposals by 67 deputies and party leaders and redirected half of the money to nominations from the president of the group itself, deputy Yury do Paredão (-CE).
The emedebista indicated R$44.5 million for municipalities in Ceará, its electoral base, with the reallocation of funds that were previously the responsibility of other deputies or parties. Subtitle leaders such as , , , Avante and Podemos had their resources cut. Even the president of the Chamber, (Republicanos-PB), had his proposals canceled by R$7 million.
The cuts benefited the president of the commission and two of his allies with new appointments: the leader of the MDB in the Chamber, deputy Isnaldo Bulhões (AL), with R$30 million, and the national president of the party, deputy Baleia Rossi (SP), with R$10 million. With fewer resources (R$4.8 million), the president of the Health Commission, Zé Vitor (PL-MG), was also assisted.
Discovered by Sheetthe maneuver caused outrage in the Chamber, and a session to repeal the act was hastily called on Monday (22), when Congress was practically in recess after voting on the Budget on Friday (19).
The committee’s plenary this Monday was full of dust, with one of the glass doors replaced by a siding and servers summoned in a hurry, when Yury entered and voted on the new spreadsheet with indications. The new session lasted less than a minute, with no deputy in the room other than the president himself, who dispensed with his suit and tie.
“I inform you that the spreadsheet is on the table. I put it up for discussion. If there is no one who wants to discuss, the discussion ends. I put it to a vote. Those who approve remain as they are. The spreadsheets are approved”, said the emedebista, in a vote that, this time, lasted exactly 16 seconds.
The new nominations spreadsheet was not yet published on the website, nor did parliamentarians who are members of the commission have access to it, but there was a promise to resend the original spreadsheet. The vote took place remotely, with attendance being made via cell phone, after complaints from deputies behind the scenes about the cancellation of their amendments.
“I didn’t know, I found out now. It’s a dirty attitude”, said deputy Reinhold Stephanes (PSD-PR), when informed by the report. Another seven deputies, including from the MDB, responded that they were also unaware of the change and that there was no agreement to change the nominations.
The president of the committee attributed the cancellation of his colleagues’ amendments to an error on the part of the staff. “I believe that the advisory team confused this with previous indications. These minutes will be rendered invalid”, said the emedebista. “They must have confused the list of the MDB leadership with that of the commission. I only found out earlier today [segunda].”
One of those who benefited from the relocation of the amendments, Zé Vitor said he found out about the Sheet that the suggestion had been approved. “I actually filed a proposal in the system, but they told me it didn’t materialize because I didn’t have enough balance.”
As committee amendments are discretionary, it is up to the Executive Branch to decide whether to reserve resources to execute them or ignore them, even if they have been approved by Congress. This is used as a bargaining chip with congressmen to garner support for the agenda of interest to the federal government.
They replaced the extinct Budget rapporteur amendment, declared unconstitutional by the (Supreme Federal Court) in 2022 due to the lack of transparency about the real political godfather of the nomination (which was hidden under the classification that the author was the Budget rapporteur). The mechanism was used to distribute funds under government secrecy (PL).
A is an instrument used by deputies and senators to direct public resources to works and services in their electoral bases. Some of them are under investigation, due to suspicions of embezzlement and fraud. The STF minister determined in 2024 that commission amendments would be blocked until more transparency and traceability rules were adopted.
The model adopted, however, proved to be inconsistent, as , and more than R$1 billion in public money continues to be approved without knowing the real political sponsor of the funds. Furthermore, the publication of the amendments referring to 2025 shows that the data is spread across more than 40 files on the websites of the Chamber’s committees and , with layout errors, links that make consultation difficult and formats that do not allow the information to be worked on.
The government system also does not allow knowing who had the funds paid, as the Transparency portal indicates the commission as the author of the nomination and hides the name of the parliamentarian.
The maneuver in the Urban Development Commission on the eve of the recess also exposes the lack of control over the allocation of million-dollar funds by the parliamentarians themselves. The indications are, without any debate and without the deputies themselves knowing the lists of works, cities and projects awarded with the money.
Congressmen say that the president of the Urban Development Commission probably took advantage of proposals from other deputies that had not been successful, due to a lack of compliance with the criteria required by the government, and sought to provide resources for his electoral base. If the agreement is signed by December 31st by the ministry, city hall or state government, it has years to execute it.
