James A. Leach: “What the gentleman from North Carolina is engaging in is captious argumentation. Let me explain this as carefully as I…”

“What the gentleman from North Carolina is engaging in is captious argumentation. Let me explain this as carefully as I can. We have a long tradition in the House of Representatives, in the Congress of the United States, when we expend Federal funds to put requirements on them. Those in most instances are not unfunded mandates. Let me be as precise as possible. We have rules about money going to States form time to time, and we require that civil rights be enforced. That is not an unfunded mandate. That is a requirement for receipt of Federal funds. The gentleman from North Carolina objects to the work requirement in this bill. He is free at any point in the debate to offer an amendment to strike it, and your side will attempt to do that. But I would simply stress that under the definitions of law provided by the CBO, which is the overseer of this program, this is a requirement for receipt of Federal funds. It is not an unfunded mandate, section 105, which is what the gentleman is principally getting at.”