The content of these pages is developed and maintained by, and is the sole responsibility of, the individual senator's office and may not reflect the views of the Nebraska Legislature. Questions and comments about the content should be directed to the senator's office at firstname.lastname@example.org
At the conclusion of the past week, the 2nd session of the 104th Legislature was two-thirds complete. Despite the short period of time remaining, much work remains to be done, including General File discussion of many senator, committee, and speaker priority bills. The schedule over the next several weeks will include extended days for floor debate. The Unicameral will begin in the morning, standing at ease for 20 minutes in lieu of recessing for lunch, and work into the evening.
Since a bill without a priority designation or consent calendar status will not be heard on the floor, some bills may be attached to existing priority bills on General File or Select File debate as amendments. In some cases, committee priority bills may be completely gutted from their introduced version, with several bills being combined into a single committee amendment that replaces the original bill. Colloquially referred to as “christmas tree” bills, these bills can be quite extensive with many separate components. If you are following specific piece of legislation, be aware that it may be amended into another bill, or the bill debated on the floor may be drastically different from the introduced version. The website of the Nebraska Legislature has the most current pending amendments and language for each bill as it proceeds through the legislative process. I encourage constituents to check for updates concerning legislation that is active on the floor. You can also contact my office for an update on the status of a bill.
The budget bills will advance for General File debate on Tuesday, March 15. Since this is the second year of the biennial budget passed last session, the requests for additional funding are commonly referred to as “deficit requests”. The most significant impact to the General Fund was a decrease in the revenue forecast compared to the revenues projected when the budget was developed a year ago. Increases over the projected amount required for TEEOSA aid to schools further strained the budget. One time reductions of unspent appropriations in Department of Health and Human Services aid programs of $98.9 million were used to fill the revenue gap, while various cash fund transfers and a revised February revenue forecast added an additional $29 million to balance the budget.
The most significant long term changes to the General Fund included a 10 year extension of the annual General Fund contribution to physical plant upgrades in the University of Nebraska and State College systems of $11 million and $1.125 million respectively. Both funding commitments were extended through 2030.
Cash reserve dollars, also known as the “rainy day funds”, were recommended for three significant one-time projects. The Appropriations Committee has recommended the Transportation Infrastructure Bank, proposed as LB 960, receive $50 million from the cash reserve. A $27.3 million appropriation for the Department of Corrections to expand community corrections beds was also included in the recommendations. Additionally, $13.7 million has been identified to upgrade the levy system that protects Offutt Air Force Base from flooding. If passed by the full legislature, $91 million will be drawn down from the Cash Reserve Fund. The unobligated balance of the Cash Reserve Fund would then be $634 million.
As the debate begins on the budget and continues on priority bills, please do not hesitate to contact my office with questions or to express your position on legislation at 402-471-2732 or email at email@example.com. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
This past week the Agriculture Committee voted to advance my priority bill, LR 378CA,the Right to Farm Constitutional Amendment, to the full legislature for debate. The strong support of Nebraska’s agriculture commodity groups, including the Nebraska Cattlemen, Nebraska Corn Growers Association, Nebraska Soybean Association, and Nebraska Pork Producers, as well as the Nebraska Rural Electric Association and Nebraska Cooperative Council represent the value and support for pursuing constitutional protection for Nebraska’s farm and ranch families.
As the bill makes its way through the process, anti-agriculture groups have begun the process of spreading misinformation regarding the Right to Farm. I must underscore several things that LR 378CA does not do. LR 378CA does not give farmers and ranchers carte blanche to do whatever they want. The Right to Farm Amendment does not restrict local municipalities or zoning boards from establishing and enforcing community standards. Every right is subject to reasonable restrictions, and LR 378CA clearly allows legislative action to protect a compelling state interest. The initiative and referendum processes, critical mechanisms to provide a voice to Nebraska’s “second house”, the people, remain fully intact. In addition, language developed working with the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Environment Quality further specifies the ability of the state to protect and manage its vital water resources and to comply with federal environmental regulations. Furthermore, a clause is included to keep intact all current statutes put in place by previous Nebraska legislatures prior to December 31, 2015. LR 378CA preserves the current state of operation and protects property rights for future generations.
The question has arisen regarding the protection of Nebraska farm families at the constitutional level, as opposed to the lower, less protective level of statute. The significance of Nebraska agriculture, economically and culturally, raises it to the level of inclusion in the guiding principles of our state. Establishing this constitutional protection clearly codifies the role and significance of agriculture as the foundation and stabilizing force of Nebraska. Placing the right to farm only in statute, which can be amended with only 25 votes in the Nebraska Legislature, fails to provide adequate protection. The objective of LR 378CA is to protect family farmers and ranchers and their property rights from the undue influence of advocacy groups who can drive legislation and regulation. HSUS has already effectively pushed the passage of laws to restrict accepted farming practices in surrounding states. Statutory approaches to right to farm are simply ineffective.
In the era of term limits, institutional memory of senators within the Legislature has a finite span of 8 years. It is for this reason that constitutional protection is so critical. Few even recall that in 2008 LB 1148 was introduced in the Nebraska Legislature to ban the use of gestation crates for pigs. The bill was introduced by a Lincoln senator with little or no connection to agricultural production at the request of HSUS. The introducer stated to the Omaha World Herald “I had no idea that this was such a big issue nationally”, clearly unaware of the impact the legislation would have. In today’s era of social media misinformation and national lobbying efforts, it is dangerous to assume a similar bill would meet the quick fate of LB 1148, which was withdrawn five days after introduction.
Since its adoption, the Nebraska Constitution has been amended 228 times. Since 1990 alone, 37 amendments referred by the Legislature and 6 referred by the initiative process have been adopted by the voters of Nebraska. Our constitution is a living document that reflects the priority of Nebraska’s citizens. With regard to Nebraska’s identity as a state and its role providing food to the nation and global community, there is no topic of greater significance than agriculture.
Constitutional Right to Farm already exists in North Dakota and Missouri, and the Oklahoma legislature has placed the issue before the voters this November. As the national leader in crop and livestock production, Nebraska needs to provide a similar level of protection to our farm families to preserve Nebraska’s place as a national and global leader.
If you have any questions concerning LR 378CA or any other piece of legislation impacting the Legislature, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
This past week the Nebraska Legislature crossed the halfway point of the session. Full day floor debate will begin as committees wrap up their work and priority bills advance to the floor for debate. In addition to my Appropriations Committee work, this past week I had public hearings for three bills I introduced. On Tuesday I had the public hearing for LR 378CA, the Right to Farm Constitutional Amendment. Later in the week I presented two bills that address issues I am also passionate about, transparency in government and protection of citizen privacy.
If adopted, LB 792 prohibits state officeholders from becoming lobbyists until two years after leaving office and prohibits certain employees engaged in policymaking from becoming lobbyists until one year after leaving their positions. Commonly referred to as a “cooling off period” or “stopping the revolving door”, LB 792 would provide a waiting period to reduce the influence of personal connections and relationships developed while in office or working as a public employee in lawmaking and policy development. The public offices that would be impacted are the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, State Treasurer, Secretary of State, Auditor of Public Accounts, member of the Legislature, member of the Public Service Commission, member of the State Board of Education, or member of the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska and the policy-influencing employees of those offices.
LB 792 was written to mirror federal statute that was passed in 2007 for federal office holders and their staff, although in Washington D.C. versions of revolving door statutes have dated back to as early as 1872. In addition, 33 other states have enacted “cooling off periods”, yet Nebraska has none. Restriction of policymakers from becoming lobbyists immediately following the end of their terms is the norm nationwide.
It is my belief that government should be open, transparent, and responsive to the will of the people. In the process, it should be devoid of undue influence. I want to be clear and up front this proposal is not directed at any particular individual or institution, nor is it an accusation of existing inappropriate behavior. However, my own experience has indicated this is a concern among voters. When running for office, I was often questioned if candidates expected a pay-out at the end of their service with a lobbying position as part of their motivation for serving.
Maintaining the trust and confidence of the voting public is essential to a functional democracy. The perception of impropriety can be damaging to the credibility of elected officials and cast doubt upon the fairness of the policy making process. For a state that prides itself on transparency, I believe Nebraska is falling short when it comes to public expectation in this regard. Based on the reception from several committee members during the public hearing, I do not expect the Government, Veterans, and Military Affairs Committee will advance LB 792 to the legislature for consideration. Nevertheless, I will continue to introduce legislation for consideration by my colleagues to increase the transparency and accountability of the legislative process throughout my term in office.
If you have any questions concerning the revolving door bill or any other piece of legislation impacting the Legislature, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at email@example.com. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
As public hearings for introduced legislation wrap up in the 2nd session of the 104th Nebraska Legislature, the focus is shifting toward the priority bills and upcoming budget discussion for the remaining half of the session. Full day floor debate will soon commence. Each senator can designate a bill as a priority bill, and each standing committee can designate two priority bills. The priority designation will be critical for bills to be debated during the limited time remaining.
As committees wrap up their work in public hearings, their focus turns toward the executive functions of committee work. Committees will consider amendments to the introduced copy of bills based on information obtained during the public hearing process and vote to advance bills to the floor, indefinitely postpone them, or take no action. The more complex and important a bill, the more likely the committee process will involve advancing a “committee amendment” with the bill when it advances to the floor for debate.
The Education Committee has prioritized LB 959, introduced by Education Committee Chair Senator Kate Sullivan on behalf of Governor Pete Ricketts. As introduced, the bill increases transparency in school budgeting and restricts growth in school district budget authority to 2.5% plus student growth. This bill will serve as the “vehicle” that will likely contain the best elements of several bills that were heard by the education committee.
Following years of soaring ag land valuations paired with relatively stagnant growth in the valuation of other classes of property, most rural school districts no longer qualify for state “equalization aid” under the current school funding formula. Without equalization aid, the bulk of the burden for funding rural schools has fallen on the shoulders of local ag land owners. It is indisputable that the mechanism for funding K-12 education in Nebraska is in need of reform. Providing a fair and equitable base level of state aid for every student educated in Nebraska is the long term goal. The challenge lies in the complicated process for achieving that reform.
I must emphasize several points. First, I wholeheartedly support the work of our schools and local school boards. The discussion of funding reform and budget limitations is not an indictment of the work of educators, who are working in increasingly complicated educational environment. That said, the growth rate of per pupil spending is unsustainable. District 38 encompasses 15 school districts, who have had an average growth in per pupil costs of 58% between 2006 and 2015. The average cost per pupil is $15,101, with a range from $10,357-20,426. The current rate of growth in costs is simply outpacing the ability of taxpayers to pay.
Second, the core of my political philosophy is increasing transparency and participation in the policy process. The more information voters and taxpayers have about how their dollars are being used, the more engaged they are in the decision making process. Local government requires full participation of residents and taxpayers. Local communities should have the choice to spend as much as they wish on education in their schools, but local voters should have the opportunity to make an informed decision about those choices. Asking for a vote of the people for exceeded budget growth limits is not punitive, but rather a critical piece of local engagement in education decisions.
Third, there is no single fix, silver bullet, or single year solution to restoring parity among districts with regard to school funding. The process will be incremental as policies are implemented that attempt to minimize abrupt changes to both local and state budgets, as well as ensure state dollars sent to local districts are used to reduce the property tax asking of local landowners. Simply appropriating more dollars is never a solution. Greater accountability for how those dollars are spent is essential. As with any policy shift, some fixes may need to be changed and adapted over time.
Effective school finance policy provides adequate resources to provide effective instruction without placing an unreasonable tax burden on any single group of taxpayers.There will always be tension in the process of balancing those interests. I encourage you to closely monitor the property tax bills as they progress through the legislative process. If you have any questions or concerns regarding property taxes or any other matter before the Legislature, do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
Agriculture is the undisputed foundation of Nebraska. The economic engine of our state, Nebraska agriculture represents one in every four jobs and over $23 billion in economic impact. The vitality of our rural communities, the conservation of our natural resources, and the protection of our defining culture as Nebraskans is inextricably linked to the success of the 50,000 Nebraska farm families who provide food, fiber, and fuel for every Nebraskan and millions more globally. Protection of Nebraska agriculture is my highest priority. It is for that reason my legislative priority bill for the 2016 session will be LR 378CA, a resolution to establish a constitutional Right to Farm and Ranch in Nebraska.
Nebraska’s farm and ranch families are producing higher quality crops and meats with greater sustainability and a smaller environmental footprint than ever before. Modern stewardship practices and the use of technology for crop protection and promotion of animal health have enabled family farms and ranches of every size to thrive in a competitive global commodity market. As a national leader in agriculture and natural resources research, the opportunities for Nebraska to be home to new agricultural innovation are limitless.
Unfortunately, as fewer and fewer consumers have a direct connection to agriculture and food production, misconceptions about modern agriculture created by activist groups take root. In the social media age, anyone with an anti-agriculture agenda can quickly undermine Nebraska’s farm families, even using the guise of “pro-farmer” or “pro-food” groups. Activist groups also promote increasingly restrictive legislation and regulation that impairs the right of family farmers and livestock producers to use accepted, safe practices on their farms and ranches.
Nebraska’s farm families do not have the resources to defend legal challenges in response to suits filed by deep-pocketed, anti-agriculture activist groups. Even incremental adoption of their agenda is crippling to Nebraska’s rural communities and to our entire state. With constitutional protection provided by LR 378CA, Nebraska’s family farmers and ranchers will have certainty as they build their operations and invest in our rural communities.
Proposing an amendment to the Nebraska Constitution is no trivial matter. The significance of Nebraska agriculture, economically and culturally, raises it to the level of inclusion in the guiding principles of our state. Doing so clearly codifies the role and significance of agriculture as the foundation and stabilizing force of Nebraska. Placing the protection only in statute, which can be amended, fails to provide adequate protection. The amendment process in the Unicameral will require a super-majority of 30 votes on Final Reading to be placed upon the general election ballot. Then people of Nebraska have the final voice.
In the past year Nebraska has seen the disruption that can be caused by anti-animal agriculture extremists targeting producers. Misinformation about the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and animal health practices is rampant on social media. Activist anti-agriculture legislation in California, Ohio, and Rhode Island has been crippling to agriculture not only in those states, but has had far reaching impacts on states nationally due to the interconnected nature of agriculture. The threat is real. The time to proactively protect Nebraska agriculture is now.
Constitutional Right to Farm already exists in North Dakota and Missouri, and the Oklahoma legislature has placed the issue before the voters this November. As the national leader in crop and livestock production, Nebraska needs to provide a similar level of protection to our farm families, now and for generations of future farmers and ranchers.
Nebraska winter weather made for an interesting and atypical week in the Nebraska Legislature. Despite the blizzard altering the week’s schedule, the public hearing addressing one of the most important topics before the legislature took place as scheduled. The Revenue Committee held hearings on the proposals for property tax reform on Thursday, February 4. Lasting all afternoon and well into the night, the primary focus was LB 958.
LB 958 begins to address the property tax burden in Nebraska through several components. First, the bill would put a limit on the rate of valuation increases on agricultural land. It is well documented that farmland valuation has increased at an atypical rate over the past few years, with a single year jump of 29% in 2013-2014. The disproportionate valuation growth between classes of property has shifted the burden of funding local government in rural areas like District 38 squarely on the shoulders of ag land owners. Under LB 958 the statewide aggregate increase for agricultural land valuation would be capped at 3%. Although the major valuation increases have already taken place, the cap prevents the disparity between property tax burden on different classes of property from being exacerbated.
Second, LB 958 increases accountability of local spending decisions and gives greater voice to local taxpayers for spending increases. All levy limit overrides must be subject to a vote of the people. Greater transparency of local spending and increased voter participation in spending decisions improves civic engagement in local government. Full local control over spending decisions remains.
Finally, LB 958 tightens the levy and spending limits on local government. Exceptions to budget limits for restricted funds are eliminated, as is carryover of unused budget authority. Levy limit exceptions for voluntary termination agreements and court judgements are also eliminated. With permission of a vote of the people local governments can still exceed spending limits, but the total budget expenditures will be accounted for in the levy exceptions, improving transparency of local government spending for voters and taxpayers.
The property tax problem is a complex, multifactorial issue. It evolved over a series of years and amidst unprecedented economic changes in the agriculture economy and the Great Recession. Addressing the problem will require multiple policy changes over several years. State and local governments alike will need to aggressively step forward to address spending, establish a tax policy that preserves local control, and prioritizes expenditures.
During the hearing there were many testifiers representing local taxing authorities who simply said “no”. Unable to answer questions about sustainable spending, acceptable rates of government growth, or alternative solutions to address the property tax burden, it was disappointing to see the attempts to obstruct property tax reform. Hyperbole was rampant, with some predicting catastrophe if local growth is restricted to only 3% per year. I am frustrated by the magnitude of fear baiting perpetuated and the lack of alternative solutions suggested.
Every level of local and state government must be willing to participate in action-based solutions, not simply resist change and push the responsibility to someone else. I am confident we can responsibly address the property tax challenges in a sustainable manner that preserves local control. To do so, all stakeholders must exhibit the political will to come to the table and participate in the process.
I encourage you to closely monitor the property tax bills as they progress through the legislative process. If you have any questions or concerns regarding property taxes or any other matter before the Legislature, do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at email@example.com. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
The fourth week of the 2016 Legislative Session continued the trend toward extended debate on several issues as they came before the entire unicameral body for debate. While some issues have failed to advance in the face of filibuster, others have narrowly advanced to the next round of debate.
During the past two weeks, several pieces of carryover legislation from the 2015 session were the focus of debate. Meningitis vaccination for young adults, expanded gambling, packer ownership of swine, statewide conformity in gun laws, and the age of eligibility for public office were all topics before the unicameral that encountered significant opposition and were subject to filibuster. Current unicameral protocol establishes the time period for debate on any bill to six hours on general file, four hours on select file, and two hours on final reading. At the conclusion of that time period, 33 votes are required to end debate, known as a “cloture motion”. If the cloture motion passes, the underlying bill is then voted on by the body, with a simple majority of 25 votes required for advancement. If the cloture motion fails, the bill is pulled from the agenda and effectively killed for the rest of the legislative session. In practice, it only takes 17 of the 49 senators willing to sustain debate on a bill throughout the time period and vote nay on cloture to kill a bill.
The comparison between making sausage and the legislative process is not inaccurate. From idea to introduced bill, throughout the committee process, to debate and amendment on the floor, most legislation is the result of a continual cycle of discussion and revision. Few bills or policies are perfect in their entirety. As your representative, my job is to get the best legislation possible to represent the interests of District 38, as well as Nebraska. The process is fluid and dynamic, and an amendment can make a bill I oppose something I can support, or can have the reverse effect. In the end, legislating is more than just “stopping” a bill—it is a process of working with my colleagues from all districts in the state to develop a law that represents the interests of all Nebraskans. When the vote is called, I have only two options before me, yes or no, despite how many issues may be contained in the bill.
While filibusters are an important tool in the legislative process, they are not a replacement for productive discussion and cooperation among stakeholders. Compromise is not necessarily a sign of weakness, but can also be a means of advocating for a core value. As the session continues, I encourage all voters to carefully read the bills before the legislature and follow the debate. Your input and perspective is critical as I make the daily choice of when to stand firm, when compromise is necessary to achieve the goal, and when to let an issue go. To provide input on any bill, please do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
Bill introduction has concluded and a total of 487 bills and resolutions have been introduced for consideration by the legislature this session. Each bill will have a public hearing in the committee to which it was referenced during the next five weeks. Floor debate continues on carryover legislation from last session.
In the Appropriations Committee we continue to work on the development of the preliminary budget adjustments to the biennial budget. In conjunction with the recommendations made by the Governor, the committee is considering deficit requests to address expenses that were not foreseen during last year’s budget process. Addressing the projected revenue shortfall is also part of our work to guarantee a balanced budget.
In addition to the bills I discussed last week, LR 378CA, the Constitutional Right to Farm Amendment, and LB 792, the “revolving door” bill, I introduced two other bills for consideration this session.
LB 720 would make the unauthorized capture of images by unmanned aerial vehicles a trespassing offense. UAVs, commonly known as “drones”, have become very popular among people who use them for both hobby and commerce. Many of these drones have the ability to capture photos and video during their flight. As the technology advances, the law regarding an individual’s right to privacy with drones flying over personal private property and taking photos and videos has not kept pace. LB 720 requires express permission to capture an image over private property using a drones flying below 200 feet. It does not affect the flying or use of drones, but rather protects citizens, their homes, businesses, and farms from unauthorized photos and videos. I look forward to the discussion about the appropriate use of this new and exciting technology.
LB 979 is a bill enabling the substitution and use of a class of medical products called “biosimilars”. Biosimilars are an innovative class of pharmaceuticals that provide treatment options for health care providers and patients. LB 979 updates Nebraska statutes to allow for the substitution of biologic products only with FDA approved interchangeable biologics. Current state law governs the substitution by pharmacists of generic drugs for their branded counterparts, and similar statutory direction is needed to craft state policy allowing for the substitution of FDA approved interchangeable biologics. The bill would provide guidance for health care providers and patients as use of these innovative products grows.
If you should have any questions about the legislation I have introduced or any other matter before the Legislature, do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at email@example.com. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
The second week of the legislative session saw the continued introduction of bills for consideration and debate on carryover priority bills from the 2015 session. During the week, the Governor also introduced his proposals to address the property tax crisis and the revenue shortfall. Committee meetings will begin during the third week and legislators will begin making their way through several hundred pieces of introduced legislation.
LR378CA is a proposed constitutional amendment I introduced which would establish a constitutional Right to Farm in Nebraska. As introduced, the amendment states “the Legislature shall pass no law which abridges the right of citizens and lawful residents of Nebraska to employ agricultural technology and livestock production and ranching practices without a compelling state interest.” As Nebraska’s number one industry, one in four Nebraskans is employed in an agriculture related field. Small business in Nebraska, the bulk of Nebraska’s industrial sector, and much of our transportation and shipping industry in Nebraska is directly linked to the success of our ag producers. Throughout the country we have seen continued baseless attacks on agriculture, including the use of GMO technology in crop production and antibiotic use to protect animal health. Locally in District 38, we have seen activists protest livestock production practices. As fewer and fewer consumers have a connection to the farms and ranches that produce their food, Nebraska agriculture must be mindful of the need to proactively protect our industry from activist legislation and regulations intended to restrict agriculture on a purely ideological basis. I look forward to working with farmers and ranchers across Nebraska to advocate on their behalf.
LB 792 is a second bill I introduced that would require a two year period after leaving office before state-level elected officials could serve as lobbyists. State senators, constitutional officers, and other state-level elected politicians would be prohibited from using the influence of their former office to lobby lawmakers immediately after leaving office. Staff who serve in a policy-making role would be restricted for one year. Commonly referred to as “revolving door” policies, federal law, as well as statutes in 33 other states, reflect similar ethical provisions. This year there are 314 paid lobbyists on record with the Legislative Clerk’s office. Voters should have confidence that influence and relationships elected officials develop while in office are not used to bring undue influence on the policy making process in the immediate years after leaving office.
Both of these bills reflect the priorities and objectives that motivated me to seek elected office. As a fourth generation livestock producer in Nebraska, advocating for Nebraska agriculture is my greatest priority. Additionally, transparent, accessible, and effective government is the core of my political ideology. In the past week there has been much speculation about my motivation for introducing both of these bills. It is disheartening to me that cynicism in the political world runs so high that it is somehow odd that a farm kid from Heartwell representing an agricultural district would introduce a bill protecting agriculture, or that any senator would impose restrictions on themselves in the name of good government.
If you should have any questions about LR378CA, LB 792, or any other matter before the Legislature, do not hesitate to contact my office at 402-471-2732 or email at firstname.lastname@example.org. For daily updates during the session, please follow me on Twitter at @JohnKuehnDVM.
Senator John Kuehn, District 38
You are currently browsing the District 38 News and Information blog archives for the year 2016.