John Kline: “I do thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, even though I must oppose the amendment. I would say that we do…”

“I do thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, even though I must oppose the amendment. I would say that we do miss him on the committee. I would say that in my district, like his, we certainly have rural schools. In fact, I was thinking about rural schools the other day. My wife went to such a rural school. It was called Country School because it was a one-room schoolhouse, and how heartbroken she was when she was forced to go to the big-city school--population 1,000--for the city. So we do know something about rural schools. The underlying bill, the Student Success Act, does maintain the rural education programs in the bill, and under the local academic flexible grants, districts can support the use of digital learning if they believe it is the best way to use those funds. The bill already allows every district to determine what they need for their students and not have to abide by priorities set by Washington. So while I greatly appreciate the gentleman's passion for rural schools--and I think I share that passion--I just firmly believe we don't need yet another new Federal program. We are working to provide flexibility so that schools can put the resources where they need them the most. And so I must oppose the gentleman's amendment, ask my colleagues to oppose it, and I yield back the balance of my time. The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Loebsack).…”