overextend limited federal police resources, and . . . would transform relatively minor state offenses into federal felonies.” 401 U. S., at 812. Reliance on the federalism principles articulated in Rewis to dictate a narrow interpretation of “bribery” is misplaced. Our concern there was with the tenuous interstate commerce element. Looking at congressional intent in that light, we held that Congress did not intend that the Travel Act should apply to criminal activity within one State solely because that activity was sometimes patronized by persons from another State. Ibid. Here, the sufficiency of the interstate nexus is no longer at issue. Rather, so long as the requisite interstate nexus is present, the statute reflects a clear and deliberate cert. denied, 423 U. S. 874 (1975) (<HOLDING>). 2 Also indicted with petitioner were Duffy
holding that the requirements for establishing a rehabilitation act violation are similar to those for establishing an ada violation holding a violation of the travel act recognizing that where the board properly finds a violation of the act it can order reinstatement under its remedial powers granted by  160c although finding no violation of the act here holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that a violation of the truth in lending act is not a violation perse of the ocspa