on the part of Congress to alter the federal-state balance in order to reinforce state law enforcement. In defining an “unlawful activity,” Congress has clearly stated its intention to include violations of- state as well as federal bribery law. Until statutes such as the Travel Act contravene some provision of the Constitution, the choice is for Congress, not the courts. We hold that Congress intended “bribery ... in violation of the laws of the State in which committed” as used in the Travel Act to encompass conduct in violation of state commercial bribery statutes. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is Affirmed. Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case. 1 See United States v. Brecht, 540 F. 2d 45 (CA2 1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 1123 (1977) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pomponio, 511 F. 2d 953
holding that there can be no violation of  1986 without a predicate violation of  1985 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 a violation of the truth in lending act is not a violation perse of the ocspa holding no violation of the travel act holding no violation of federal establishment clause