Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I appreciate the characterization of the benefits from the Export-Import Bank as being export subsidies because we are talking about subsidies.

Generally speaking, we on this side of the aisle are against subsidies, especially if the subsidies are for the poor people. I just suggest we should question whether we should oppose subsidies for the rich people as well.

So I rise in support of the rule. There could be a better rule but, under the circumstance, I support the rule but I do not support the legislation. There are very good economic and there are very good moral reasons why programs like this should not even exist.

I do want to take a moment to talk about something else I think is very important. Sometimes I think if one takes themselves too seriously around here one would become depressed, and I try very hard not to be depressed. But I found something in the committee report that I think is very, very interesting.

We have a House rule that says that in the committee report on legislation, when it comes up, we have to explain which part of the Constitution justifies what we do here. Of course, there is legislation that is proposed that if we pass the legislation it would be the law and we would have to answer to that antiquated document, the Constitution. I happen to be so old-fashioned as to believe that if we were all as serious about the Constitution, all we would have to do is vote the Constitution and those convictions each day and we would not need rules or laws.

But nevertheless I think it is interesting to note exactly where the constitutional authority comes from for the Export-Import Bank. Of course, the old standby is the general welfare clause. We do this for the general welfare of the people. But if we think about it, we are using taxpayers' money, we are using subsidized interest rates, we are benefiting certain companies, and we do benefit the foreign recipients and many times these are foreign governments, so they are not the general welfare. If it is a cost to the taxpayer, we are doing this at a penalty of the general welfare, not to the benefit of the general welfare.

This is a wastebasket used especially in the 20th century as a justification for doing almost anything in the Congress. But then the justification goes on, and I find this even more fascinating. Of course, the other justification is the power to regulate commerce.

Well, regulating commerce between the States, actually the commerce clause was written to deregulate and make sure there were no impediments against trade, so we cannot under the Constitution regulate trade. But that does not say subsidize certain people at the expense of others. So that was a giant leap in the 20th century where the regulation of commerce permits us to do almost anything.

It certainly rejects the whole notion and challenges the whole concept of the doctrine of enumerated powers. So we either have a Constitution where there is a doctrine of enumerated powers or we do not. The document is very clear. It delegates powers. The powers are very limited and they are numbered. They are enumerated.

But today, if we casually look at the welfare clause, and if we casually look at the regulatory clause on commerce, we here in the Congress, under that understanding, we can do just about anything. And what happens? We do just about anything. And that is why our Government is so big and our regulatory bodies are so huge and we have tens of thousands of pages of regulations, because we have so little respect for the document that we should be guided by.

But there is another justification, according to the committee report, as to why we should and are permitted to pass legislation like the Export-Import Bank. Now, this one has to catch somebody's interest and it has to be slightly humorous to somebody other than myself.

In addition, the power to coin money and regulate its value gives us the justification to give subsidies to big corporations, to benefit companies overseas, to take credit from one group and give it to another, and to steal the money from the people through an oppressive tax system in order to provide these subsidies. And yet the justification is to coin money?

The Constitution still says that all we can do is use gold and silver as legal tender. Since we do not do that, we should have changed the Constitution. We should do one or the other. But to use the coinage clause to extend credit is a stretch beyond belief. It says, though, that the courts have broadly construed this to allow Federal regulation, the provision of credit, to provide credit.

Well, this is exactly opposite of what the founders said and exactly opposite of one of the major reasons why we had the Constitutional Convention. This power that they take through the coinage clause in order to extend credit is exactly opposite of the provision in the 1792 Coinage Act, which says we have to protect against counterfeiting, and anybody who would be so bold as to debase the currency and ruin the value of the money, there was a death penalty mandated.

But here we casually give to our agencies of government this authority under the coinage clause to provide credit. Credit is nothing more than the dilution of the value of money. And believe me, long term, this is detrimental.

Later on in the general debate, I would like to address the economic issues as well.