ome historians say the turning point for Republicans was the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, who was backed by powerful western interests. During his presidency, writes William Cronon, environmental protection was demonized "as a symbol of usurpation of liberty and property, especially among those in the West who had long chafed at federal ownership of western land."

Reagan's rise consolidated the shift in power from the Northeast to the West and the South, where there was plenty of public land but few who felt it needed federal protection. His first interior secretary, James Watt, was "indifferent or even hostile to land preservation and strongly sympathetic toward the commodity interests that Theodore Roosevelt had fought eight decades earlier," writes REP's Jim DiPeso in his monograph "The Republican Divide on Wilderness Policy." "Pro-conservation factions within the Republican Party became increasingly marginalized and less influential."

Marks thinks the environment became too closely associated with liberals and Democrats back in the 1970s. In the early days of the Nixon administration, she says, "there was no partisan divide on the environment. But war protesters became associated with Earth Day, and Republicans didn't want to be identified with the ponytailed crowd." Even today, Marks indulges in her own bit of stereotyping. The environmental movement has been dominated by "reformed hippies," she says, and "it's one reason the movement isn't more successful."

When it comes to matters of policy -- substance, not style -- Marks has more in common with those reformed hippies than she may care to admit. (And for the record, most environmental lobbyists these days dress no differently from their industry counterparts.) Still, REP's policy papers, with their rhetoric of fiscal conservatism, reflect the organization's Republican pedigree and constituency: America should manage its energy resources frugally; reduce its dependence on foreign oil and its carbon dioxide emissions; create new business opportunities from untapped resources (with tax credits and rebates for energy-efficient products); and end subsidies for oil, gas, and coal exploration. Global warming and the loss of biodiversity must be halted because we have a "fiduciary responsibility" to manage our natural capital for future generations.

But is it realistic to think that Republicans will again rally around environmental issues? Marks laughs. "We're not under any illusions that we'll see a magnificent transformation in the Republican Party any time soon. This is a long-term project. The ultraconservatives and the anti-environmentalists are in power because a long time ago people put up big money to create the right-wing think tanks, the TV and radio stations. This isn't a quick and easy thing to do."

Working to build a Republican constituency for the environment, Marks's four-person staff makes it a priority to thank Republican representatives for their pro-environment votes, sometimes with a note, sometimes with a reception, always with a mention in The Green Elephant. "We praise them loudly because it's so much harder for them to vote right," says Marks, especially since more influential conservative groups, such as the Club for Growth, will go out of their way to pillory pro-environment Republicans.

George W. Bush has been a mixed blessing for REP. His policies on the environment galvanized some Republican critics and brought them to Marks's group, especially early in his term. Says Ryan Busse, a Trout Unlimited member from Kalispell, Montana, "I have lots of friends who endorse fiscal and social conservatism but are frustrated with the administration's public land policies. REP is exactly what I'm searching for." In a recent poll commissioned by the National Wildlife Federation, a majority of hunters and anglers said they opposed President Bush's policies on wetlands, his push for energy development on public lands, and his lax regulation of mercury pollution. Moreover, they felt the administration was listening more to oil and gas interests than to scientists and conservation groups.

Support from people like Busse is nice for REP, but it's more common for Marks to hear from moderate Republicans who have left the party in disgust. "It's hard to hold on to members and grow because people are bailing out," she says. In the face of this decidedly uphill battle, Marks's public persona -- part bulldog, part cheerleader -- is REP's greatest asset, and her frequent speeches around the country the single best forum for advertising her group.

Marks delivers the same message in red states and blue, to tree huggers and deer shooters, to conservation alliances and Republican leadership conferences. She tells them that the environment must be, once again, a bipartisan issue. It took bipartisan support, after all, to pass the Endangered Species, Clean Air, and Clean Water acts. "If environmentalists routinely back one party and demonize the other, the environment will lose," she says. "Gains made by the greens when they're in power will be turned back by the browns when the cycle turns and they take power back."

But many Republicans remain suspicious of Marks; they accuse her of being a RINO -- a Republican in Name Only. I wondered the same thing. Does she identify with Republicans out of nostalgia for the old days of the party, or perhaps out of loyalty to her dad, who taught her never to question authority? Marks bridles. "I'm a real Republican," she says emphatically. "My family has always been Republican, and so have I. I believe in self-reliance and in taking care of one's own. I'm a fiscal conservative. I'd like to see smaller government, but there are two things the federal government must do because the states cannot: provide a strong national defense and protect the environment." Even though she believes the government is spending way too much in Iraq and not enough on the EPA, Marks is hardly about to defect to the Democrats. Besides, she knows she can get more traction on Capitol Hill as a Republican.

As Marks's day on the Hill draws to a close, several women at the Garden Club gathering want to know what REP's stance will be on the November elections. For candidates who neglect the environment, she says, it'll be the same as in 2000: "A loud silence."

"Republicans don't think they need to reach out to environmentalists," she tells me. Then, like a schoolteacher admonishing her classroom, she adds: "But they'll be a little sorry if they don't."