Rousseff speech at the delivery of the results of the referendum for political reform, October 13, 2014

Good evening to all and all!

Kiss for all and to the Levant! I want to compliment the Paola [Road], the Movement Popular Consultation, the companion [João Pedro] Stedile, the Rural Workers Movement leader, Vagner [Freitas], President of the CUT. Here I wanted to greet our pastor Manoel Ferreira, who honors us here with the participation of a very important evangelical leadership. I also want to greet everyone and all members of the National Referendum Commission by the Constituent Exclusive.

To me, it's touching to see this mobilization here, the Stédile right. This unit only seen in big moments, movements that have transformed Brazil, as was the case of Direct, now! So here I feel the power and smell of a transformation. Because you could not theoretical or generic speech, you are here today celebrating an action that demonstrates the thesis that you advocate and I believe deeply in it: that only the manifestation, mobilization and popular participation may be able to create the conditions for political reform, which is the mother of all reforms. And I say this because one thing is clear: we can not find that the Congress autorreforma. No instance is autorreforma without the mass demonstrations, without being clear what the proposal is legitimate before the Brazilians. Hence the importance of what you have done, the act itself to mobilize, to go into the streets to raise a proposal and get 7 million, in fact, nearly 8 million votes. Eight million votes without the official form. It was made by initiative, by the spontaneous action of the united set of social movements. It is exceedingly important, significant.

So, here today, we recognize an activity that was able to mobilize out of all institutional structures, 8 million people voting in this country by the force of an idea. When, soon after August, in fact, from June 2013, we began to raise the issue of the Plebiscite and the Constituent Assembly, we find out that we did not have enough drive to pass in Congress. We found that even had no unity among government supporters to propose constitutional. I personally believe that the Constituent institutionally is a good one, because there will be those who are in the exercise of the mandate will reform the political institutions of the country, but an instance convened exclusively for this purpose, which then dissolves. The unit that this proposal may have started with you collecting 8 million votes. Personally, I was in favor but, as president, I had no correlation to the strength. I had to Plebiscito.

And then I want to say one thing: I do not believe that we can approve the most important proposals, such as the end of the business financing campaign, without this being voted in a plebiscite. Do not just call Assembly, not simply constituent, you must vote in plebiscite. If not vote in plebiscite is not strong enough. With some central ideas, and it depends on the movement of the drive around these central ideas, four or five, but these have come out together to adopt, if approved, make a Constituent Assembly to approve it. But even if it does not approve a constituent, approve it.
You must fight for some programs, by a sort of minimum program for political reform. But I say that first it is essential to expand this unit. 8 million form the basis of approaching various sectors who could be in doubt, approach and build more strength and take a concrete proposal. I am in favor also, for example, male and female parity in proportional elections. Every proportional election had to have parity of candidates. It's like affirmative action, begins. So I'm in favor of it, I support also the end of proportional coalitions, in fact, the end of coalitions in proportional elections. And we here can raise a host of others, but must do a unit on key points and take it forward.

It is foolhardy to assume that we will have a political reform without the participation of the people. We will only have an effective policy reform if the people vote and say whatever. Because? Because it is a major reform that we are about to do, it changes the quality of the Brazilian scene. Not an effective fight against corruption without political reform is possible, there will be, as much as we have changed the practice. Both because we do not aparelhamos the Federal Police, do not put in the direction of the Federal Police as toucans governments have made, members of our party or parties. They put members of the PSDB to direct the Federal Police, and also selected a engavetador general's office. You may wonder where the number reported as having made crimes, wrongs, or acts of corruption throughout the political history of this country? All loose all loose. We change this practice, but we'll just change effectively end the business financing campaign, but does not change. I mean that the 26th is there, and that on the 26th we'll look at the urn and the urn before we have to think what the future of this country.

But, anyway, out front looking at the urn, if Dilma again with the power of the people is great. But what is in question are two projects, two country projects, antagonistic. They relate to some issues that are fundamental for the country. The first is one that is also the priority that a government has. Our priority is called social. Our priority was social. It is not possible for Brazil to grow, internationally say whether our people not be said together, not grow together and not to appropriate the wealth together. Therefore, unlike them, we employ, they sack workers. We do not accept that the minimum wage is the rate of inflation, we never accepted it, and hence the earnings grew by 71% above inflation and today is very different than it was in their day. They will now try to say that a government for the poor. As? Systematically they took the poor budget systematically. Speak we made our social policies, all of them were social policies that tamanhozinho. Pilot projects without scale, so few people were just to give an example. They were to make the country an example of this being one of the countries that has led 42 million people into the middle class and took 36 million of extreme poverty, took the country of the Hunger Map.

I am sure that we are in a crucial moment of political life and the future of Brazil. Do not play only four years, we played the consolidation of a process, consolidation in all areas, because I want to remember one thing: I want to remind to you that in 1998 they banned, made a law, sent to Congress, and forbade the federal government to invest in federal technical schools, because it was waste of money. There Lula sent a bill to Congress in 2005, ending the ban. They have banned eight years and they only made 11 federal technical schools, Lula made 214, and I made 208 in four years. That's why, because he had those 422 schools more, made by Lula and me, we could do a program called Pronatec who created 8 million opportunities for both worker skills, and to school, to level of technical education medium.

Now, they do not like a word, dislike, hate charged. They hate, and Pronatec had to be free, because if it were not, you would do the old selection above, only those who have income to pay for the course would study. Then the federal government placed US $ 14 billion for a free course with free teaching materials, free shipping, because otherwise, has no has no effect. This country has 202 million people. The Stedile spoke spoke of the Minha Casa Minha Vida, because we're doing the Minha Casa Minha Vida Rural, with the movements, and the Minha Casa Minha Vida is another example of another word they hate: subsidy. Hate.

Then I'll tell you something for you. A wider range of Minha Casa Minha Vida, and where we put more money, is the range of families earning up to R $ 1,600. This family only pay 5% of monthly income on mortgage payments you are entitled to the Minha Casa Minha Vida. If it is to buy on the market without subsidy from the federal government, we paid R $ 940.00 to provide. If the family win - because it is up to R $ 1,600.00 - if she wins R $ 1,000.00, she will be only $ 60 Do not eat, do not carry, does not wear, does nothing, only gets in the house . So what does the federal government need to do? You must pay the difference to be able to part of Brazil that has more deficit, which is where he has no home, is the part that gets up to R $ 1,600, so if you do not do this, the Brazilian people will not get home ever. There will complain, will claim, will speak as follows: "It is the government does nothing, all this rain falls and people are living in hazardous area". Now, people do not live in a risk area because they want to, they live in a risk area because they had nowhere to live. I'm giving the simplest example you have, this is what is in question. For example, Evo Morales was elected was elected in the first round with a very consecrating vote. The Evo Morales presides over a country that is one of those who has a status in Mercosur, it is not associated, but he is a partner. Well, if you look at the foreign policy, [PSDB] proposal is as follows: Mercosur is not more important, we turn away for the entire Latin America.

The BRIC, for example. They pretend they did not see the BRICs, which is Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. So it's very important to see that also back the old proposal of the FTAA. Begins to appear the creation of conditions to release the overall market because I do not know if you remember that also at one time, crime was speaking in industrial policy. Industrial policy, to produce in Brazil what we could produce here was a crime. What does it mean? Means the old model, liberalises all, does not negotiate and Brazil loses what? Loses sovereignty, loses authority. So that's what we think at the time there the urn, and think, obviously, to vote in Dilma. Now, anyway, as we all love this country time to even vote we vote with consciousness, with peace and love in the heart. A kiss for everyone.
