Congress writes the laws.

Correct.

The executive branch (and its unelected bureacracy) executes them.

As directed by Congress and their lobbyists.

Bishop will have no ability or slither space to game the system. 

Are you absolutely sure of that? 

Our civics teachers taught us about an ideal that, unfortunately, hasn't existed for a long, long time.

As directed by Congress and their lobbyists.

Nope.  Congress writes the Executive executes.  The only way Congress can direct is by rewriting the legislation. 

Are you absolutely sure of that? 

Until you provide evidence to the contrary - absolutely  

Ol' Lester Dethloff, the crusty, dusty old pilot who taught me to fly, gave his students some wonderful advice.  "When ye get t' thinkin' ye absolutely know yer right, yer likely t'be dead pretty quick."

EC, no ideological objections to fossil fuels. You are quite handy at assuming what others think. That would be like me saying you're really pleased with Bishop's revision because it strips at least a third of the money away from conservation projects, which you support because you don't like conservation. 

As for the $900 million in funding, this from the Land and Water Conservation Fund Coalition:

...nearly every year, Congress breaks its own promise to the American people and diverts much of this funding to uses other than conserving our most important lands and waters.

As a result, there is a substantial backlog of federal land acquisition needs estimated at more than $30 billion—including places vulnerable to development such as the Florida Everglades, Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, Civil War battlefields in Virginia and other precious places around the country. State governments also report needing $27 billion in LWCF funds for eligible local parks and recreation projects.

Notice that last sentence, about state governments?

A great overview of how land acquisition benefits the public, public lands, and even reduces costs, can be found in this document:

https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/LWCF201...

Here's one snippet of that document that should interest Rep. Bishop:

Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City and the City of Ogden are urging the Forest Service to protect several
tracts in Mill Creek Canyon and access to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail on the Uinta-Wasatch-Cache
National Forest adjacent to metropolitan Salt Lake City, Utah. Mill Creek Canyon has intense use by
residents and visitors for outdoor activities like hiking and skiing. This canyon is also a source of water
for Salt Lake City. Pressure to develop these tracts is intense; the Wasatch Front is predicted to have 
68% increase in population by 2040. There is strong support for the protection of Mill Creek Canyon to sustain water supplies and safeguard abundant outdoor recreation opportunities.

Kurt, as to your intentions, I can only infer based on your statements (current and previous).  There is minimal reduction in actual land acquisition.  The by far larger changes this bill implements is a shift from fed to state land acquisition and from "other" to education and innovation in the offshore drilling business.  - which could only help the LWCF fund and the environment.  The volume of protests far outweigh the impact on land acquistion.  That makes one assume it is the state control and oil that are by far the larger thorns.  Bishop wants more state control and supports the oil industry.  At least he is honest about that.  Those that want Fed control and a constrained fossil fuels industry are free to have those beliefs.  At least they should be honest about them instead of making up horror stories to mislead the public about their true agenda. 

.nearly every year, Congress breaks its own promise

True, Congress has seldom if ever appropriated the $900 million.  But again, as I read the preexisting legislation, the off shore drilling fees automatically kick in.  I am not aware of Congress diverting these leasing fees.  If they are, the blame isn't Bishop's bill but rather Congress as a whole.  And again, putting money into education and innovation would either help the environment (through cleaner drilling) or expand drilling and generate higher fees for the LWCF or perhaps even both.  How is that bad?  It's not.  Which takes us back to the true complaints.

Ol' Lester Dethloff

And your other mentor Alinsky told you, when you know you are wrong, change the subject or personally attack your opponent.  When you can contribute more than empty accusations or personal attacks.   Let us know.  

Comrade, when you wrote: "True, Congress has seldom if ever appropriated the $900 million.  . . .  the blame isn't Bishop's bill but rather Congress as a whole."

You just contradicted yourself again and substantiated what I've been trying to say for a long time.  It's those sneaky backroom legislation by amendment deals that have given so many Americans so little confidence in Congress.  What was the last number --- something like 4%?

And I sure don't remember ever meeting anyone named Alinsky.

 It's those sneaky backroom legislation by amendment deals that have given so many Americans so little confidence in Congress

Legislation by amendment has nothing to do with allocation of the $900 mil.  No contradiction on my part just more empty accusations on yours. 

PS, what is a contradiction is your constant ranting about Congress but wanting to give them more power at the same time.