 So I am, my name is Jeff Alschult, and I am a former president of the Register for Professional Archaeologists. And in that role, I agreed to give a paper by a more current one. But he prepared a long talk, and I'm just going to talk about what I want. So what is the Register? It is simply that. It is a voluntary statement about what we stand for as archaeologists. And essentially what happened in the United States was that the Congress passed the law in 1966 about protecting cultural resources in the country. And archaeologists sort of sat there and went, so what does that mean for us? And a couple things. One was the government didn't define who an archaeologist was or what they did or how they should do it. And so the discipline under the leadership at that time decided that they should take a stab at defining the professionalism, the codes of ethics. And the research performance. What is it that we should meet in order to meet the obligation set by the people of the United States? And so they came up with a thing called the Society of Professional Archaeologists, which lasted until about 1998. And then it was transformed into what's today called the Register of Professional Archaeologists. It's a lot like SIVA with an American twist in that it's sponsored by the four major archaeological organizations in the United States. And they use, so the four organizations pay for most of it. And they did so because essentially there's no way to sanction anybody. There's no way to promote ethics and there's, well there is ways to promote ethics, but there was no way to, if someone violated those codes of ethics. Well, if you were in the Society for American Archaeology, the SAA had absolutely zero ability to sanction you. It's a voluntary membership society. That's not what it does. So essentially a grievance arose in the SAA and the SAA turned around and said, well we can't do that. And so they got together with the other ones and formed RPA. And there's a code of conduct that extends from how you deal with indigenous peoples, your employees, sexual harassment, all the things that govern the workplace of archaeology. And then there's standards of research performance. I mentioned there's a grievance process. I'm just not going to go through this stuff. It's basically all those things that you shouldn't do. And often RPAs consider the archaeology police. That's really not a great title, but essentially it is the court of where those things get adjudicated. And the grievance process is a quasi-legal proceeding. It's a big deal. They're lawyers. It's all very choreographed. And getting expelled is a big deal because there are 3,000 RPAs now. There are about 12,000 people in the United States that call themselves archaeologists or work in the field of archaeology. To be an RPA, you have to have an advanced degree. So of those 12,000, you're looking at somewhere around, I'm guessing, about 8,000 to 9,000 with master's degrees. So about a third to 40% of those people eligible to be RPAs are RPAs. And they are largely consultants because that is where this credential is important. And we say it's voluntary. It is voluntary except if you live in California where it's mandatory if you want to work because it's in their state law. And for a company like the one I owned, to lose an RPA status would be a death sentence. So yeah, sure it's voluntary, but you got to do it. So it is very much a CR. It was never envisioned as a CRM thing, but it is. Okay, RPA because it's sponsored by, I'm just going to skip ahead here. Because it's sponsored by the organizations that do advocacy, it does not do advocacy. So that's an important thing. RPA does not go to Capitol Hill like Kenny said the SA does and the Society for Historical Archaeology does. It focuses on the conduct of archaeologists. But everyone in this room is probably worried about the elephant in the room, at least one of them, which is essentially what is going to happen with Donald Trump. You know, when he was elected in the United States that presented an existential crisis. I mean, since Ronald Reagan, no one has come into office with the avowed dedication to rescind the National Historic Preservation Act. Donald Trump's never said that, but he certainly acts like it. And I think, you know, Susan Chandler is the president of the SA. She could speak much better to this than I can, but I think most of us view that as a real possibility. We still think it's a realistic possibility that they would do so, which is why, you know, you hear about our midterms in November. It is critical. I mean, the SA, all of us are lobbying very heavily and politically engaged to make sure Congress turns to the Democratic Party, which would effectively stop legislative actions. It doesn't stop regulatory actions, but so that's part of the deal. But the other part, and I think some of you have talked about it, is these guys are in office for another couple years, and where they do the most damage is in the regulatory framework. They're still in control of not what the law says, but how you deal with that law, you know, how it's enacted. And so you hear about this all the time, streamlining or whatever the euphemism is. But it's essentially we're going to do less. And so that's what we're fighting against. And, you know, it's been, I give Susan a lot of credit, and I give her colleagues and the other associations a lot of credit, because it's been a tough fight. But the good news is that for the first year, the administration seemed to be completely incompetent, and that was helpful. But they actually weren't that incompetent. There are people in there that know exactly what they're doing, and they're very much dedicated to changing the way in which laws are done. And that's what we are fighting. So, long story short, the thing we did in the United States, the organizations, is they formed a coalition. Some of you said, you know, we're pretty small together. We're still small, but we're a lot better if we coordinate our activities and we combine our financial resources to hire lobbyists on both sides, Republicans and Democratic lobbyists to gain access. And so that's essentially what is going on. And, you know, in the United States it's a little different, I think, than Europe in that, you know, the SAA was formed in 1934 to do, part of it was to do advocacy. So we've been doing advocacy for 80 years. This is nothing new in American archeology. And we make no apologies about it. So that we saw this as a crisis and responded accordingly is that that's part of our nature. I think I'm going to stop. Get back on time. Thank you.