MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is now before the court on Defendant Samuel D. Sage’s (“Sage”) August 14, 1995 motion to dismiss the information filed against him for an alleged violation of the Child Support Recovery Act of 1992. (“CSRA”), 18 U.S.C. § 228. The Defendant claims three bases for dismissal: (1) the CSRA is an unconstitutional exercise of the commerce power under Article I § 8, U.S. Constitution; (2) the CSRA violates the Tenth Amendment and offends principles of federalism and comity; and (3) the CSRA is void for vagueness.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 13, 1995 the government filed a one-count information charging the Defendant with willful failure to pay child support as previously ordered by the Superior Court of the State of Connecticut. The information states that “[f]rom on or about September 23, 1991, through the date of this information, in the District of Connecticut and elsewhere, the defendant, SAMUEL D. SAGE, who resides in a different state, willfully and unlawfully failed to pay legal child support obligations as ordered by the Superior Court for the State of Connecticut, for his two minor children ... which amount is in excess of $5,000,00.” This district issued a warrant for the Defendant’s arrest, which was effected in Ohio.
For the reasons stated below, Sage’s motion to dismiss is denied.
II. DISCUSSION
A. PRESUMPTION OF CONSTITUTIONALITY
In determining the validity of a statute, the court must presume constitutionality.
See Walters v. National Ass’n of Radiation Survivors,
“The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.”
FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc.,
B. THE COMMERCE CLAUSE
The Defendant relies on the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision,
United States v. Lopez,
— U.S. -,
*88
In
Lopez
the Defendant possessed a handgun on the grounds of a Texas high school. Following his arrest, the Defendant was charged with and convicted of violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which prohibits the possession of a firearm “at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is a school zone.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(q)(2)(A). On appeal the Defendant challenged his conviction on the grounds that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting the statute. The Fifth Circuit agreed and reversed his conviction.
United States v. Lopez,
Much of the Lopez opinion is devoted to a review of the history of the Commerce Clause and its operation as a restraint on legislative authority. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the long-recognized proposition that
The power of Congress over interstate commerce is not confined to the regulation of commerce among the states. It extends to those activities intrastate which so affect interstate commerce or the exercise of the power of Congress over it as to make regulation of them appropriate means to the attainment of a legitimate end, the exercise of the granted power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
United States v. Darby,
the scope of the interstate commerce power “must be considered in the light of our dual system of government and may not be extended so as to embrace effects upon interstate commerce so indirect and remote that to embrace them, in view of our complex society, would effectually obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local and create a completely centralized government.”
Lopez,
— U.S. at -,
The Court also affirmed the existence of three broad categories of activity that Congress could regulate under the Commerce Clause: (1) the use of the channels of interstate commerce; (2) “the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities”; and (3) activities which have “a substantial relation to interstate commerce, 1.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.”
Id.
at-,
Turning to the statute at issue the Court found that Congress’ power to enact 922(q) had to be found under Category Three.
Id.
at-,
Contrary to the Defendant’s contentions, Lopez does not mandate a finding that the CSRA is unconstitutional. Rather, the court holds that the CSRA is constitutionally sound under Category Three.
1. STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the CSRA, the court’s role is narrow: the court must defer to a congressional determination that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce if there is any rational basis for such a finding.
See Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Ass’n,
Recognizing this circuit’s determination that federal “power to regulate interstate commerce is extraordinarily far-reaching,”
S.S.C. Corp. v. Town of Smithtown,
2. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
According to
Lopez,
the possession of a firearm in a school zone was not “economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.”
Lopez,
— U.S. at -,
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Commerce Clause power is expansive enough to include activity which is solely intrastate.
See, e.g., Hodel,
Support payments might not be considered traditional items of “commerce,”
see United States v. Mennuti,
The magnitude of the total economic loss and concomitant gain is, significant. Congress considered that of the $48 billion in child support payments owed nationally according to court judgments, a total of $35 billion has never been collected. . See 140 Cong.Rec. S9379, S9430 (1992). Of that amount, interstate cases are responsible for an estimated minimum of $14 billion in uncollected support. See id. at S9430-31. 4 Congress also considered noteworthy the fact that between 30 and 40 percent of all delinquent child support cases involve interstate obligations. See id. 5
The substantial economic gains and losses at issue in these cases have obvious implications on interstate commerce. Given the interrelated nature of our national economy, it is inevitable that local consumption will involve consumption of goods produced out of state. Thus, the non-payment of the “past due support obligation” will reduce the child’s consumption of goods in interstate commerce. It will also reduce the custodial parent’s consumption of such goods to the extent any alimony
6
is included in the support obligation. Thus, the very act of withholding payment causes a depletion of assets that affects interstate commerce.
See United States v. Jones,
A shift in interstate market demand occasioned by non-payment would cause businesses to ship their goods to different states to accommodate this shift. Although in individual instances any perceptible shift might be small, each instance of non-payment aggregated with non-payments in other interstate support eases would inevitably force substantial shifts in the interstate flow of goods, because the total amount of interstate support owed is estimated to be billions of dollars.
3. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In contrast to the statute reviewed in Lopez, the CSRA produced an abundance of legislative history regarding the economic effects of the non-payment of interstate support. See supra notes 5 and 6 and accompanying text.
Although the states have adopted measures aimed at enforcement of child support obligations across state lines, such as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (“URESA”) and extradition laws, Congress observed that the practical implementation of those measures has not been effee- *91 tive. 138 Cong.Rec. H7324, H7325 (1992). 7 The reasons for this are state boundaries and “laws and processes that differ from state to state.” See id. at H7326.
The activity regulated in this case has a substantial effect on interstate commerce in part because states have been unable to enforce their own support orders through interstate enforcement efforts.
See United States v. Bishop,
Although legislative history is not necessarily a requirement for the court’s finding that a rational basis for substantial effect exists in this case,
see Lopez,
— U.S. at -,
4. JURISDICTIONAL ELEMENT
In
Lopez,
the Supreme Court found one of the fatal flaws of the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 to be the lack of an “express jurisdictional element which might limit its reach to a discrete set of firearm possessions that additionally have an explicit connection with or effect on interstate commerce.”
Lopez,
— U.S. at -,
A nexus to interstate commerce is the requisite connection between the regulated activity and interstate commerce.
Cf. Lopez,
— U.S. at -,
5. CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, the CSRA may be sustained under the line of cases which includes
Wickard v. Filburn,
C. TENTH AMENDMENT
The Defendant argues the CSRA should be held unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, federalism and comity, because the statute allegedly invades a province which traditionally has been reserved to the states — criminal enforcement of state domestic relations orders. Congress, however, can criminalize conduct outlawed by states without violating the Tenth Amendment.
See, e.g., United States v. Bishop,
The Defendant’s citation to
New York v. United States,
Lopez
did not turn on whether a regulated activity traditionally has been the province of the states. Rather, the proper inquiry is whether the court can rationally find that an activity substantially affects interstate commerce without having to “pile inference upon inference.”
Lopez,
— U.S. at -,
D. VAGUENESS
The Defendant argues the CSRA, which is not limited to cases of parental flight across state lines to avoid paying support obligations, is impermissibly vague because its legislative history reveals congressional concern for such flight cases. He also argues the lack of any requirement that the support obligations accrue while the parent and child live in different states and the lack of a mechanism to prevent the statute’s arbitrary application 11 compel the conclusion that the CSRA is void for vagueness.
To assert a facial challenge to a statute as impermissibly vague the Defendant must show that the statute is vague “ ‘not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all.’ Such a provision simply has
no
core.”
Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.,
Because the statute contains a clear, objective core standard of conduct, the Defendant’s facial challenge to the statute must fail. The Defendant’s facial challenge must also fail because the First Amendment is not implicated in the CSRA.
See Nadi,
Any vagueness challenge by the Defendant must be analyzed in light of the specific facts of his case.
See Chapman v. United States,
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendant’s motion to dismiss the information (Document # 15) is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
Notes
. The Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 states as follows:
Failure to pay legal child support obligations
(a) Offense. — Whoever willfully fails to pay a past due support obligation with respect to a child who resides in another State shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b) Punishment. — The punishment for an offense under this section is—
(1) in the case of a first offense under this section, a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both; and
(2) in any other case, a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
(c)Restitution. — Upon a conviction under this section, the court shall order restitution under section 3663 in an amount equal to the past due support obligation as it exists at the time of sentencing.
*88 (d) Definitions. — As used in this section—
(1) the term "past due support obligation” means any amount—
(A) determined under a court order or an order of an administrative process pursuant to the law of a State to be due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living; and
(B) that has remained unpaid for a period longer than one year, or is greater than $5,000; and
(2) the term "State” includes the District of Columbia, and any other possession or territory of the United States.
18 U.S.C. § 228.
. The Court held that "[t]he possession of a gun in a local school zone is in no sense an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce.”
Id.
at-,
. The Court stated that, although "Congress normally is not required to make formal findings as to the substantial burdens that an activity has on interstate commerce,” such findings assist courts in evaluating whether the regulated activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce where the effect on commerce is not obvious.
Lopez,
- U.S. at ----,
. Compared to the amount of money estimated taken yearly through extortionate credit activity in
Perez v. United States,
. Approximately nine million children would benefit from this legislation, which would be applied to the approximately four million parents who are not paying their court-ordered and legal duty to pay child support. 140 Cong.Rec. at S9430.
Further, a report from the General Accounting Office revealed that 57 percent of all custodial parents in interstate cases reportedly receive child support payments only occasionally, seldom or never and that the statistics suggest the chances for successful avoidance of such obligations increased significantly when there is a state boundary between the child and the noncustodial parent. See H.R.Rep. No. 771, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 6 (1992).
.A “past due support obligation" is defined as an amount "determined under a court order ... pursuant to the law of a State to be due from a person for the support and maintenance of a child or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living...." 18 U.S.C. § 228 (emphasis added).
. Congressman Henry Hyde cited a recent study, which revealed that of all URESA cases sent from Michigan courts to other states, only a 41% chance existed that the receiving state courts would issue an order. 138 Cong.Rec. H7324, H7326 (1992).
In hearings, the House heard of “instance after instance where spouses, usually husbands, did not want to pay, went to another State, waited just until the legal process was able to catch up with [them], and then went to another State and started the procedure all over again." 138 Cong. Rec. H7324, H7325 (1992).
A Report from the House Committee on the Judiciary accompanying the CSRA as House Bill 1241 found that states' ability to criminalize the failure to pay child support beyond their own boundaries, even though most states have adopted URESA and other improved collection efforts, is "severely limited” and that "interstate extradition and enforcement ... remains a tedious, cumbersome and slow method of collection." H.R.Rep. No. 771, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 5-6 (1992).
. Because the CSRA covers only interstate transactions and contains an interstate commerce nexus within its language, it is not perfectly clear • whether a
substantial
effect or some lesser effect on interstate commerce is required.
See United States v.
Robertson, — U.S. -, -,
. This court also notes the hazards of engaging in such an inquiry, i.e. the temptation would be to make decisions about which federal policies this court favors and which it dislikes.
See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority,
. The Defendant also argues it was incumbent upon Congress when enacting the CSRA to specify under which enumerated power(s) it was acting. There is no support in case law for the Defendant's assertion. "Congress is not obligated, when enacting its statutes, to make a record of the type that an administrative agency or court does to accommodate judicial review.”
Turner Broadcasting Sys. v.
FCC, — U.S. -, -,
.The Defendant suggests the arbitrary application would result from decisions by the child and custodial parent to cross state lines merely to invoke federal jurisdiction.
