USPTO Budget Cuts

By Dennis Crouch

Although unwilling to confirm that the PTO will be cutting its budget, a Commerce Department spokesperson has told me that: “The [USPTO] is continuing its efforts to develop a sequestration plan—this plan is a work in progress and details are still forthcoming.” Reading between the lines, the answer is: yes, the PTO will be cutting its spending and turning-over user-fees to the treasury rather than using that money to examine patents or trademarks.

Update – Following the comments from the Commerce Department, PTO Director Rea distributed a message to employees that the agency is facing “substantial budgetary uncertainty” and is “working to identify potential savings and projects that could be deferred in a way that minimizes the impact to our mission and our employees.”

In her email, Director Rea makes clear that the under sequestration, the PTO will be unable to use a “significant” amount of user fees and those fees will instead be returned to the US treasury. In the past, this has been known as “fee diversion.”

The action plan is to first cut all non-examination related spending and then determine whether further spending cuts are necessary.

In light of these factors and the substantial budgetary uncertainty the agency now faces, it is essential that we act now to further reduce spending. I have thus asked the management team to come together to identify immediate and significant spending reductions for the remainder of FY 2013 with a focus on minimizing the impact to our mission and our employees. The management team is taking immediate measures to limit all expenditures, including but not restricted to most hiring, travel, training, and IT modernization projects. (Your managers may even be reaching out to you for ideas on cost savings measures.)

One thing to remember in all of this is that the USPTO budget has increased sharply over the past three years. FY2010 budget was two billion dollars while the FY2013 budget was almost three billion dollars. The sequester reduction is rather minuscule compared to the size of this increase.

82 thoughts on “USPTO Budget Cuts

  1. “90% of the egg on my face over the last several years is because a PG-Pub is in some gawd-knows-where Class/Subclass.”

    If you have egg on your face someone else’s classification didn’t put it there. You did.

  2. “and are extremely hesitant to agree that something they didn’t search is allowable, 9/10 times you can’t get that primary to say yes it is allowable. ”

    LOL wut? You don’t need their say so to allow a case in a class that isn’t your own. Anybody thinking they do is a ta rd. The responsibility for the allowed case is the signatory examiner’s. And if you got the right classification in the end then his ar se is covered.

    “Therefore it’s much easier to just throw it in one of your art unit’s subclasses and cross classify it in the correct class.”

    Anyone thinking this is “easier” is a ta rd, because of what I just mentioned. But in either event, it shouldn’t affect people’s searches much anyway as long as it got crossed correctly. To be sure, the “policy” of classifying by claim rather than inventive concept causes infinitely more “misclassification” problems than whatever one offs that happen every now and again because of the problem of tar ds you cited. And what causes even more problems than classifying by claims is having people that admittedly do not understand how to classify (or would fail even a basic test designed to ensure they do even if they think they do) doing classification in their cases day in and day out.

    “Since the PTO gave up on examiners doing the initial classification and outsourced it ”

    Actually those outsourced classifications have been wonderful. They get it absolutely dead on like 90%+, examiners never got nearly as good of initial classifications going on (because of the aforementioned tar dation).

    “This is compounded by the case transfer system where every transfer becomes a battle because SPEs”

    If a transfer is ever a “battle” at least one of the parties (probably you) are a ta rd and either do not understand the definitions of the classification involved or haven’t even bothered to read them (even more likely than the former).

  3. Unable to post the actual text, as something is catching in the filter, but see the uncodified, but as enacted Section 10(a)(2).

    If the budget is reset – and necessarily the workload and costs, the fees must be reset as well. The Office legal authority in this regards is constrained by law.

  4. The fee setting power is EXPLICITLY tied to the budget in the aggregate. If that budget is changed, then the fees must reflect this. Any ‘overage’ then rightfully needs to be refunded directly back to those that paid those fees.

    OK. I don’t see this is in Section 22 of the AIA, though, so I’ll have to take your word for it.

  5. I think the version I was looking at reflected the technical amendments. As I recall, the technical amendments clarified issues relating to administrative expenses. In any case, this has no bearing on my suggestion that Section 22 of the AIA doesn’t appear to prohibit fee diversion.

  6. You cannot have such a moving target.

    To wit:

      budget set –> amount and level of fees set

    does not give the power to

      budget set –> amount and level of fees set –> collect fees –> change the budget, yet not reflect this in the fees –> run off with the ‘excess.’

    The fee setting power is EXPLICITLY tied to the budget in the aggregate. If that budget is changed, then the fees must reflect this. Any ‘overage’ then rightfully needs to be refunded directly back to those that paid those fees.

    Anything else is a sham.

  7. certainly clear that this subsection dictates that the PTO can’t use patent fees for trademark-related expenses,…

    You might want to look at the technical amendments bill which removed the limitations of trans patent/trademark expenditures.

  8. Section 22 of the AIA is pretty clear “Any fees collected under sections 41, 42, and 376, and any surcharge on such fees, may only be used for the expenses of the Office relating to the processing of patent applications”.

    You’re referring to Section 22′s amendments to 35 USC 42 (c)3(A), to be specific. It’s certainly clear that this subsection dictates that the PTO can’t use patent fees for trademark-related expenses, while 42 c(3)(B) says that the PTO can’t use trademark fees for patent-related expenses.

    But, Section 22 also adds a few provisions:

    35 USC 42(c)(1): “To the extent and in the amounts provided in advance in appropriations Acts, fees authorized in this title or any other Act to be charged or established by the Director shall be collected by and shall, subject to paragraph (3), be available to the Director to carry out the activities of the Patent and Trademark Office.”

    35 USC 42(c)(2): “There is established in the Treasury a Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund. If fee collections by the Patent and Trademark Office for a fiscal year exceed the amount appropriated to the Office for that fiscal year, fees collected in excess of the appropriated amount shall be deposited in the Patent and Trademark Fee Reserve Fund. To the extent and in the amounts provided in appropriations Acts, amounts in the Fund shall be made available until expended only for obligation and expenditure by the Office in accordance with paragraph (3).”

    I’m no expert in government finances, but doesn’t this say that Congress reserves a right to set a budget for the PTO and to recapture fees collected in excess of that budget? If the sequestration law says that appropriations to the PTO are to be cut along with everyone else’s, then I don’t see how Section 22 of the AIA prevents that.

  9. Between the legal talent and knowledge on one side of the Patent equation and POPA on the other side, can’t there be a collaborative effort to keep this thing from going off the rails?

    This is not a plea of self-preservation as a Federal Employee, this is the heartbreak of an Examiner who believes they’re providing the service they were born to do; and flippant manner in which the Agency is being bullied undermines the integrity of it all down to the core.

    I want what I do each day to mean something and this fiasco is just killing my morale; and I’m an Examiner who takes their role as a public servant seriously, I can only imagine how those who are simply marking time are now approaching their work.

    Can’t the two sides of the equation come together and push back?

  10. The only relevance is in relation to the thread of (actual) patent law that this very large exercise in diversionary dust-kicking is covering up: the Myriad oral arguments and the capitulation of Malcolm and his little circle and Malcolm embracing the view that I posted (and that Malcolm claimed he just could not understand): if isolation is not enough to make a difference in kind: no patent for you – even if though the item from the warehouse of nature be just discovered (e.g. discovered after the patent and not by that inventor).

    101 is not constrained by the timing of 102/103. Textually or otherwise.

  11. My point is that you are not being intellectually honest.

    (or ever, likely) – feel free to ignore history, as that is par for the course of being intellectually dishonest.

    Open your eyes.

  12. Totalitarian societies can’t stand in the face of an armed populace,that’s why the Founders’ first act was to ensure an armed populace.

    Uh, it wasn’t quite the first act. Before that the Founders gave the federal government the explicit power to smash uprisings from the “armed populace,” in Article 1, Section 8: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” And then they thought it might be a good idea to explicitly define only a single crime in the Constitution: treason, which they defined as levying war against the government.

    And then they decided that it might be a good idea to let citizens have guns, so that they would be readily available to organize into militias for putting down insurrections, wiping out native Americans, etc.

    Certainly the Founders were suspicious of tyrannical governments with large standing armies. But the Second Amendment reflects an effort to avoid the need for a large, standing, professional army. The notion that the Founders were trying to empower individual paranoids to hold off the full force of the government-organized militias with their bunkers of machine guns and rocket launchers is absurd.

    Read some history, people.

  13. What would your comparison look like between 20+ dead children attacked by a crazy man with a knife versus 20+ injured children who survived an attack by a crazy man with a gun?

    It would look like fiction, since neither of those events have taken place in the last 6 months (or ever, likely). What’s your point?

  14. The Japanese do love their F terms. I don’t mind too much if the CN stuff is unsearchable since it’s 99% noise, but the KR stuff is cutting edge in a lot of areas.

  15. Heard a rumour in the gym yesterday jpo and other Asians are doing their own classification system w/ no correlation to cpc

  16. I agree with everything you said, particularly the stuff about us taking the CPC down with us because we’re still giving classification the shaft.

    Btw, the EPO will be reclassifying all the US applied CPC codes for the next few years. You won’t have access to their reclassifications, but folks using commercial databases will. They (off the record) say it is because they don’t trust the USPTO no to screw it up.

    2nd btw – I abhor the automated classification of PG-Pubs. 90% of the egg on my face over the last several years is because a PG-Pub is in some gawd-knows-where Class/Subclass. Citation search can’t find them and the clever lexicographers make it tough on us sometimes, particularly in the mechanical arts where key word searching is less than ideal.

  17. As I noted Leopold, – you need to compare apples to apples.

    What would your comparison look like between 20+ dead children attacked by a crazy man with a knife versus 20+ injured children who survived an attack by a crazy man with a gun?

    Anyone can play with the details to paint a (misleading) picture. Most intellectually honest people refrain from doing so.

  18. That’s because PTO management made the decision to not update the classification system in favor of the CPC many years ago, and in the mean time subclasses have ballooned into the thousands and tens of thousands rendering classification searching pointless as it could take an entire day to flip through a subclass even at 0.5 sec per publication.

    The CPC is much better in many areas, but there are also areas where they just adopted the US subclasses (so no real improvement) or decided they didn’t want to issue any patents in some areas so those subject areas completely disappeared from the CPC (making searching subclasses impossible). US examiners are basically being force feed a renumbered IPC when the EPO doesn’t grant patents in many areas the US does.

    The REAL problem comes from the USPTO culture of classifying a case in your classes when allowed rather than putting it where it truly belongs. Over time this has helped to render the classes useless, and if it isn’t fixed (a real possibility) then over time the CPC will also be rendered useless. The reason examiners classify their cases incorrectly is because of a policy where you have to go consult a primary in the art unit that you believe is the correct class for the case before you allow it. Since primaries don’t like helping examiners from other art units, and are extremely hesitant to agree that something they didn’t search is allowable, 9/10 times you can’t get that primary to say yes it is allowable. Therefore it’s much easier to just throw it in one of your art unit’s subclasses and cross classify it in the correct class. Since the PTO gave up on examiners doing the initial classification and outsourced it to people that just do a keyword frequency analysis, the bad classification perpetuates itself from the bad classification of allowed patents since the misclassified patents are now in the corpus of patents used for the initial classification.

    This is compounded by the case transfer system where every transfer becomes a battle because SPEs don’t want a lot of backlog cases due to that being one of their evaluation criteria. In the end examiners are forced to examine a case that really isn’t in their area of expertise, the case gets allowed and again misclassified, and the cycle continues.

    Unless this PTO culture is fixed, any CPC improvements will be short lived, and if the EPO adopts our CPC classifications then we’re likely to take the EPO down with us.

  19. No, I’m seriously arguing that 20+ injured children who survived an attack by a crazy man with a knife are quite different than the 20+ dead children attacked by a crazy man with a gun. Are you seriously disputing that?

  20. But, facts do not seem to even be important when he is in full slander mode.

    Funny, on Malcolm, you call this “swagger” and told people to just enjoy it.

  21. Does a handgun under your pillow really make you feel safe from the government?

    Pillows are for girly men. The concrete floor of bja’s bombproof bunker is perfectly comfortable.

  22. I just googled “america invents act no fee diversion” and the first result was “Patent Reform Fails to Halt Fee Diversion – Inventors Digest”.

    What part of AIA are you talking about?

  23. How does me owning 2 or 200 rifles affect anyone else?

    You know who would be really helpful with answering this question? Your therapist.

  24. Broaden your ideological horizons some and look into knife crimes.

    LOL. Are you part of the pro-knife lobby, too, Gregory?

  25. Totalitarian societies can’t stand in the face of an armed populace, that’s why the Founders’ first act was to ensure an armed populace.

    Uh huh. If the US went totalitarian one day and sent its army for you, do you think your weapons would stand in the face of theirs? Does a handgun under your pillow really make you feel safe from the government?

  26. READ SOME HISTORY PEOPLE!!!

    This is insane. What was the first move of the Communist Revolution? Gun confiscation. Totalitarian societies can’t stand in the face of an armed populace, that’s why the Founders’ first act was to ensure an armed populace.

    You people are supposed to be educated. What is going on here?

  27. You’re seriously arguing that someone robbed with a knife is different than someone robbed with a gun, and that someone killed with a gun is different than someone killed with a knife? Like I said, the insanity of liberalism knows no bounds.

  28. McCraken does appear to be aware that the good Republican was a Democrat. But, facts do not seem to even be important when he is in full slander mode.

  29. most prepared for when capitalism someday inevitably fails?

    Maybe because they are the ones who paid attention to when communism failed (instead of burying their heads in some nether region and continually pine for its application still)?

    Maybe – just a guess on my part.

  30. The IPO, representing patent owners, has intervened in cases involving public policy before. They would be the ideal party to file suit challenging this OMB action.

  31. McCracken, could you please keep irrelevant politics out of this. At times, the politics is relevant especially when we get to debates about property rights, economic freedom and how patents affect these. But you have made comments such as Republicans this and Republicans that, especially in view of African Americans, that are downright offensive, and do not belong in any civil forum.

  32. I cannot support scraping CPC. Even if the whole idea of collaborating with the EPO is ta rded instead of doing it ourselves and doing it correctly instead of with their ta rded letters numbering system and often ridiculous way of breaking things down by terms that nobody in their right minds understands (even worse than the old school definitions the USPTO used in the 70′s for our classification).

  33. There is a very real reason why communism has failed.

    Not enough guns. Obviously.

    Well, actually it was more of a resource distribution issue, but surely that could have easily been resolved to the satisfaction of whoever had the most guns.

    Which, incidentally, is exactly what Greg Girard is bracing for. Why is it always the hard-line Republican capitalists who are the most prepared for when capitalism someday inevitably fails?

  34. Ignoring the reality of the human condition (“If you really have freedom, you don’t need guns.” is no way to make any type of sense and no way to make any type of improvement.

    There is a very real reason why communism has failed.

    Sorry to burst your bubble.

  35. Controlling law abiding citizens has never helped to control criminals.

    It’s weird, isn’t it? No matter what laws you pass, the only people who ever break them are criminals.

  36. Either we have freedom or we don’t.

    If you really have freedom, you don’t need guns. Guns are for people who only have as much freedom as they can vigilantly defend with the threat of violence.

    You’re free to go, that’s the beauty of this country.

    You’re free to go, just don’t you dare say the country could be improved at all. Because the people with the guns get very upset. Not that they’re bad people waiting to act out or anything, but they are the sort of people who insist on having guns for … why, again? To protect you against the other people with guns? Makes perfect sense.

  37. How does me owning 2 or 200 rifles affect anyone else?

    That depends, is everyone else bulletproof?

    How did Russia having lots of nukes affect anybody?

  38. I’m not by any means advocating the types of control they have in China,

    Actually, you are (at least by implication)

    but arguing that gun violence and knife violence are the same is ridiculous.

    To the dead victim, what exactly is the difference?

    (note that this is explicitly not discussing the number of victims)

    Throw another wrinkle out there: 2nd Amendment. Pretty darn sure that China does not have that.

  39. I’m pretty sure the victims of those crimes think they’re equal to “gun violence” victims.

    Seriously? You think the parents of the children in Guangshan would change places with the parents in Newtown? link to contextchina.com

    I’m not by any means advocating the types of control they have in China, but arguing that gun violence and knife violence are the same is ridiculous.

  40. Why would you assume that CPC is costly?

    Patents need to be classified for assignment to art units and to facilitate searching. The CPC replaces the USPC. Where is the cost increase in switching? In fact, the EPO did the vast majority of the work for us in creating a new scheme while we had let the USPC lapse…

    There is a relatively small amount of cost at the front end in getting your outfit (the Coronado Group) to reprogram your software to the new system. And there should be some cost in retraining the examining corps to use the new, more efficient system. Both of these two things may or may not be done in the current budget environment.

    In my opinion this relatively small amount of cost is more than necessary after the complete lack of upkeep and training by the USPTO in the USPC over the past twelve years. There are thousands of examiners that were never adequately trained to search and classify appropriately.

  41. So every gun owner is a bad person just waiting to act out, right? So we should eliminate the police? Or wait, they’re always on the good team, except when they’re not, right? You’re not making any sense. Either we have freedom or we don’t. There are plenty of other countries that agree that people need to be controlled. You’re free to go, that’s the beauty of this country.

  42. Who was talking about nukes? Talking to liberals reminds me of when I used to work with schizophrenics. Just stick to the topic at hand. How does me owning 2 or 200 rifles affect anyone else?

  43. I worry a lot more about violence that violence using only guns. Broaden your ideological horizons some and look into knife crimes. I’m pretty sure the victims of those crimes think they’re equal to “gun violence” victims.

    FYI, it’s the accurate version of history. Controlling law abiding citizens has never helped to control criminals. It takes someone insane like a liberal to try to make that conclusion.

  44. So who did he hurt again, and what’s the problem with him having whatever weapons he has?

    I remember when everybody was saying exactly that during the Cold War. Russians never nuked anybody, so what’s the big deal if they have whatever weapons they want? The world’s a free country, right?

    Definitely wait till someone gets hurt before there’s a problem. And then it’s just that one guy, right? None of the other people with guns have hurt anybody yet, other than the ones who have. I’m sure they’re fine.

  45. So who did he hurt again, and what’s the problem with him having whatever weapons he has?

    I get it MM. You want to control everyone. There are lots of countries where that’s the norm. This isn’t one.

    And this post is comic gold for the hypocrisy when combined with your above post regarding “we’re not after your guns.”

  46. Why focus on just one instance? Nothing like that could ever happen here, right? We’re completely different. They were human and we’re like more human than human, right? LOL

  47. For once, I respect MM’s answer. He’s just claiming ignorance. Your answer is completely scary. Australia had to introduce a new law for a new type of crime when they banned guns – home invasion. Do us all a favor and read some history; this level of ignorance is extremely dangerous (not to mention embarassing).

  48. Back to the USPTO… Cutting the OCIO’s budget for delivering yesterday’s technology tomorrow isn’t such a bad idea. While their at it they should cease and desist on the CPC conversion. How much is that juggernaut costing?

  49. Of course I do 6. But, then that is how people are in general unless there is some way they are being held accountable.

  50. So the ricin mailing guy tuns out to be a loopy Republican. WHAT A SURPRISE! Who could have guessed that?

  51. They wound up with less gun crime? Like, every other freaking Western nation has enacted stricter gun laws than the US, and somehow they haven’t slided into fascism.

  52. Section 22 of the AIA is pretty clear “Any fees collected under sections 41, 42, and 376, and any surcharge on such fees, may only be used for the expenses of the Office relating to the processing of patent applications”. The section also says that if fees are in excess of appropriations, those fees will be put in a PTO reserve fund. So if Obama’s OMB takes the money and spends it on something else, even debt reduction, that is a clear violation of the AIA.

    The question is who has standing to sue and prevent this? The ordinary patent applicant will be damaged immediately since the money will not be spent on examination, but on some other priority, but the damage is somewhat remote, which might limit their standing.
    POPA won’t get standing unless they furlough examiners or fail to pay examiner earned by union contract bonuses, or cause some other damage.
    The USPTO contractors probably signed “at will” type contracts which limit their ability to sue.
    Other USPTO employees will probably have to be furloughed to get standing.

    So even though this seems a clear violation of law, who could sue to prevent it?

  53. What amazes me (not), is the

    *click*
    *yawn*

    You bore me, Humpty.

    Here’s hypocricy:

    link to star-telegram.com

    Gov. Rick Perry on Thursday declared McLennan County – home to West, the small community rocked by the deadly fertilizer plant explosion – a disaster area and announced that he’s asking President Barack Obama for a federal emergency declaration as well.

    Same dude, April 15, 2009: “I believe the federal government has become oppressive. I believe it’s become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of its citizens, and its interference with the affairs of our state,” Perry declared.

    Typical Republican. This guy talked about seceding during his campaign for governor. Now he wants the help of this “oppressive” entity because his shrunken little state gov’t couldn’t be bothered to force compliance with minimum safety standards. That would be bad for business! Welcome to Rick Perry’s Texas: where freedum smells exactly like leaking ammonia gas.

  54. Speaking of stockpiling weapons without registering them, let’s not forget Greg Girard, perhaps the archetypical patent t–b-gger:

    link to thepriorart.typepad.com

    The inventor who holds the patent that was at the heart of two libel lawsuits against “Patent Troll Tracker” blogger Rick Frenkel and Cisco Systems was arrested last week, after police found an illegal stockpile of firearms, ammunition, and grenades in his home in Manchester, Massachusetts, about 30 miles from Boston. Gregory Girard, named inventor on U.S. Patent No. 7,283,519, believed he was readying himself for “Armageddon,” according to police. In addition to having around 20 firearms, Girard was stockpiling food and medicine, camouflage, and body armor, and had built an indoor shooting range in the attic of his condominium, according to accounts of the arrest in the Gloucester Daily Times and the Boston Globe. …

    George McAndrews, a founding partner of McAndrews, Held & Malloy and one of the lawyers representing ESN in the suit against Cisco, praised Girard in a letter to Cisco general counsel Mark Chandler: “Mr. Girard is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind when they penned the Patent Clause in the basic Article I of the U.S. Constitution.”

    As far as I can tell, this gentle but somewhat paranoid soul (and innovative superstar — I almost forgot!!!!) remains a “ward of the court” and is presently deemed a sort of saint by a lot of websites with “liberty” and “patriot” in the address.

    Reminds me: can any of the patent fluffers here recommend a good Sade CD?

  55. What has happened in every country that has enacted a registration program, and how did that end up?

    I don’t know the answer to that question because I’m not a weird gun freak. But please, continue with your script. I can’t wait to learn the awesome answer. Does H-tler make an appearance somewhere?

  56. What amazes me (not), is the hyprocsy of the ‘ohnoes’ statement as this is not something Malcolm ‘values,’ but heaven forbid it would be the worst thing ever if it was something in his ‘backyard.’

    His ‘moral outrage’ simply loses its impact due to his hypocrisy. The real shame is that he does not get this, and he refuses to apply any level of intellectual honesty – he just lies so much that nothing he says is believable.

  57. What has happened in every country that has enacted a registration program, and how did that end up?

  58. I paid for examination under the AIA, which says no fee diversion. Obama says, divert the fees anyway. Sounds like a taking to me.

  59. Andy, I think the main culprit for taking the USTPO fee money for general purposes is the OMB. The efforts of the IP community were to get Congress to put a stop to this practice. I think the AIA did that.

    Now, the OMB has given an interpretation of a budget deal to overrule an act of Congress. They may be right. They may be wrong. But they are predictable and not to be trusted at all.

  60. the President wonders why the NRA said the bills would create a mechanism for a central list, even when the President thinks the bills explicitly prevent it

    Oh noes! A list of people who bought guns!!!! The horror… The horror… Next thing you know they’ll require people to report patent assignments which is pretty much the same as having a camera inside your t–let.

    It’s so great that we focus on the important stuff here in the good ol’ USA, like making sure that the President has the authority to torture your kid if he thinks it’s necessary to save some “innocent” people.

  61. “Senators Manchin and Toomey have repeatedly pointed out that their legislation explicitly barred a federal registry and would impose a harsh penalty on any official who tried to create one.”

  62. Yes, but due to the wording of that compromise it will have no effect on this situation. If you look up the exact laws you will see why.

  63. You seriously believe this? I mean, of course I hope this is true, but I’m not really sure that this makes any sense.

  64. …and this in spite of the provisions in the law preventing same..

    …and the President wonders why the NRA said the bills would create a mechanism for a central list, even when the President thinks the bills explicitly prevent it.

  65. (they had their fingers crossed)

    Apparently, even this Congress is not bound by the actions of this Congress.

  66. Whoa, wait a minute — wasn’t there some deal struck back when the AIA was held up at House Budget related to diversion? I thought there were assurances that this sort of thing would not happen.

  67. Whatever happens we can be sure it will maximize the benefits of the federal employees and minimize the needs of the citizens.

Comments are closed.