dr. harper, if i could clarify a couple of things. first, we're going to be advocating to use all of the tenant improvements, money from the city financing. the cost review committee was very flexible last time we met, and they told us we can take 25 million for both building improvements and tenant, so she showed quite a bit of flexiblity. they did not rule out giving us the additional 10 or $11 million. they have to think about it. in february , we're going to be making the pitch for more money, and i'm optimistic about that, but when we presented the asset management's agreement to the board and the board approved it in march, in it, we had identified 27 or $28 million as needed. we had indicated we would seek reserves as funded by city financing to fund that. after we talked to crc, cost review committee, they wanted to think about it. so we did present a number. initially before that, our thought process was that we were going to -- [ inaudible ] -- that's why we're at where we're at. as we received information, we provided it to

dr. james savage briefly with this office of naval research report and reviewed academic research and ins a quote from the harper's magazine to summarize what he said. academic research is supposed to be peer reviewed, the best scnce wins out. with earmarks, quality has nothing to do with it. schools have research funds because they're in a powerful district or have the money to hire a lobbyist. that was big business back then. study october 2007 from the bureau of national research, paper on academic research found the political's representation is a predictor whether that university received earmarks and the average earmarks of the appropriations committee abouts three times higher than noncommittee members and research to lower impact than does competitive funding, i had mentioned that earlier and this is more precise. universities that received earmarks funding at one time do not subsequently improve their research standing. if the purpose of academic research in the united states government through the agencies which improve scientific research, they did not have that impact. >> that's interesting and here ag

dr. savage with the office of naval research, but he listed academic are research and this is a quote from the ha harper's magazine that he said that academic research is supposed to be peer reviewed and the best science wins out, and with the quality, schools get the research fund ps, because they are in a powerful district or don't have the money to hire a lobbyists, and that is big business back then. and so, from the national bureau of economic research working paper on academic research found that the university's political representation is a significant predictor of whether that university receives the academic research, and the academic research appropriations committee was three times higher than noncommittee member, and earmarks lead to more research and impact than competitive funding, and i had mentioned it, but this is more precise. the universities that received earmarked funding at one time does not substantially increase their research. so with the research from the government through the agencies, earmarks did not have an impact. >> that is interesting, and here again, if i could exercise