Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309, 333 n. 34, 88 S.Ct. 2128, 20 L.Ed.2d 1118 (1968)(“There is of course no question that the Federal Government, unless barred by some controlling constitutional prohibition, may impose the terms and conditions upon which its money allotments to the States shall be disbursed.”). If Congress imposes a “condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously;” otherwise, the State cannot “voluntarily and knowingly accept[ ] the terms of the ‘contract.’ ” Id. Spending clause legislation, when knowingly accepted by a fund recipient, imposes enforceable, affirmative obligations upon the states. See Wheeler v. Barrera, 417 U.S. 402, 427, 94 S.Ct. 2274, 41 L.Ed.2d 159 (1974), modified on another ground, 422 U.S. 1004, 95 S.Ct. 2625, 45 L.Ed.2d 667 (1975) ; King, 392 U.S. at 333, 88 S.Ct. 2128; see
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding agencies of state government are part of the state for purposes of sovereign immunity
B. recognizing that states and local agencies must fulfill their part of a spending clause contract if they choose to accept the funds
C. holding that state agencies are treated as states under the eleventh amendment
D. holding that state and local government agencies were not persons under the fca
E. holding that appellate courts may choose to accept or reject concessions of counsel and are not bound by them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.