Asa Hutchinson: “Thank you, Mr. President. Just responding to some of the comments of my colleague concerning the National Endowment for…”

“Thank you, Mr. President. Just responding to some of the comments of my colleague concerning the National Endowment for the Arts and the need to preserve and maintain that national entity, I think that if the record is examined, as it has been examined by the General Accounting Office and the inspector general's office, that the record of the National Endowment is not only deplorable but fails to justify its continued funding and continued existence. The issue of whether or not the Government plays a role in funding for the arts aside, the best means of providing the limited funding, the $100 million approximately that has been appropriated for arts this year directly in the NEA, I think is clear that that money would best be used by eliminating the existence of the National Endowment and allowing the funds to flow directly to the Governors, to the various States for distribution to those programs and those projects and those artists within the States that are most deserving. In fact, the notion that we are better off with a national endowment that funds six States disproportionately, that funds certain congressional districts and certain States disproportionately, cannot be validated and cannot continue to be justified. We have a General Accounting Office report indicating that the administrative costs of the NEA, at almost 20 cents on the dollar, is higher than most other Federal agencies, much, much higher than the National Endowment for the Humanities.”