The Pros And Cons Of Congressman Bishop

683 Words3 Pages

Congressman Bishop began the seminar by discussing public lands and his continued work on the projects that he believes benefit Utah. He described the issue by first displaying a map of the amount of land that is considered public lands in the west in comparison to the land in the east. By and large, the east has little public lands and the west has a considerable amount. Congressman Bishop explained that this is because when the Eastern states joined the union they were given their land back to them. When the federal government did not give the land back a couple of eastern states sued the federal government and received their land. However, afterward, the federal government stopped returning land after territories became states. This subsequently directly affected the western states because they entered the union later. This has resulted in the majority of lands in the …show more content…

During this time there was a reoccurring theme and that was his grievances with Congress and government in general. Congressman Bishop complained about the appropriators and claimed that the way it is done in state government is superior to the federal government. His reasoning behind this was because in Utah every legislator is an appropriator so everyone gets a say in the budget and does not have a conflated ego. However, in the federal government there is an appropriation committee and in Congressman Bishop's view, they have become conceited and arrogant. He complained further about the customs that have cemented themselves within the federal government. These are mostly the ways of speaking and relationships between staff and Congressmen. He has therefore taken it upon himself to break some of these customs like speaking directly to another congressman's staff or standing when a Senator walks into a room. Congressman Bishop argued that by breaking these customs we can try and make the members less

Open Document