workers’ compensation statute, 5 U.S.C.A. §§ 8101-8193 (West 1996 & Supp. 1998) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 1920 (West Supp. 1998), Jones argues that when Congress wants to preserve state remedies in comprehensive federal employee benefit plans it does so by explicit language. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, even in those cases in which Congress has created a federal remedy for fraud related to a benefits program, Jones cites no authority that by creating the federal remedy Congress clearly intended to preempt State remedies as to the same matter. Second, the fact that Congress created remedies in other statutes only supports the State’s argument that when Congress intended to act in the peripheral areas of punishme Pa.Cmwlth. 291, 335 A.2d 832, 838 (Pa.Commw.Ct.1975) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 471 Pa. 529, 370 A.2d 732, 734-38
holding the state law claims were not preempted holding state law prohibiting lotteries was not preempted by postal power when lottery was conducted by mail holding state law regulating solicitation of funds by charitable organization was not preempted by postal clause when solicitation conducted by mail holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding pennsylvania statute regulating subrogation is a law regulating insurance