In part that's why we've called for a study to look at the needs of these new ones that are coming up, and over a number of years I think a reasonable projection can be made, so we're better informed about them.
You asked if there were ways in which the playing field could perhaps be limited, and the answer is yes. The answer is in two parts. First, what is the federal role and how narrowly do you want to tie it? And second would be setting up a criterion or accreditation program, as operates in other countries, saying that for museums to be eligible—just as with the indemnification legislation this committee's been looking at—there is a defined clientele group of institutions that meets national standards on conservation, standards on humidity and light control, or in all of these technical areas in museums, and also in terms of community relations, with the museums having a board that is open and accountable, and published annual reports and audited statements. All of those can go in there.
Such programs do exist in the United States, and in Europe there are well-developed accreditation programs recognizing those who need to get up here. In an interesting way they also help those who aren't making it, because if the program is done correctly, it's like a doctor going out to visit the patient: he does the diagnosis and writes a prescription, and that prescription becomes what your business plan must be in the next five years to rectify the following areas.