Return to Speeches Index
Republicans and the Environment
by REP President Martha Marks
delivered at the Midwest Republican Leadership Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana; August 24, 1997
I want to thank Gordon Durnil for giving me this opportunity to speak today and add my input to this intra-family discussion about how our party deals with the environment.
Some people try to make the environment a partisan issue, a Democrat-Republican issue. But it's not. It's an American issue. People of all political persuasions know that their children will have to live with the physical world we leave them; if it's a mess, their lives will be a mess as well. No party can hope to ignore this concern and be successful for very long.
Unfortunately, many of our party's leaders seem to believe they can ignore the environment, or even mistreat it, without being rejected by the American people. That just isn't so.
Republicans for Environmental Protection has set as its mission: "To resurrect the GOP's great conservation tradition and to restore natural resource conservation and sound environmental protection as fundamental elements of the Republican Party's vision for America."
Apparently, the American people are with us. Polls consistently show that—given a choice between an equal amount of environmental protection, less, or more—80% of Americans, say they want equal or more protection. Very few want less environmental protection.
Even our own GOP pollsters are telling us we've got a problem. In January, 1996, Linda DiVal released results showing that 55% of Republican voters do not trust their own party to take care of the environment. That's an absolute scandal!
So, why does our party have this anti-environmental image? Some would have you believe it's the fault of the "liberal media" that don't give us credit for the good things we do, or the fault of Democrats looking for a "wedge issue" to use against us in the next election.
Well, I'm here to say that it's neither the Democrats' fault nor the media's fault. It's our fault!
Our bad public image on this issue comes from what some of our party's leaders say and do (or don't do), some of the bills they propose in Congress and the statehouses, and the anti-environmental votes that some of them make.
Let me show you just one example of what I mean. Take a look at Don Young, the chairman of the House Resources Committee, a man with great power over our natural resources and public lands. Here are just a few things that Congressman Young has said on the record:
- "When I see a tree, I see paper to blow your nose." (Anchorage Daily News, Jan. 5, 1995)
- "If you can't eat it, can't sleep under it, can't wear it or make something from it, it's not worth anything." (National Journal, Aug. 11, 1995)
- "I don't believe the government, unless it's a communist government, should own lands." (Alaska Public Radio, Feb. 14, 1996)
- "Environmentalists are a socialist group of individuals that are the tool of the Democratic Party. I'm proud to say that they are my enemy. They are not Americans, never have been Americans, never will be Americans." (Alaska Public Radio, Aug. 19, 1996)
These quotes all come from the man whom our Republican Speaker of the House has twice selected to head the Resources Committee. Are the media or the Democrats to blame for that? I don't think so.
Did the Democrats force Young to make those anti-environmental statements? I don't think so.
Is the media to blame for quoting him? I don't think so.
Young's committee used to be called the Natural Resources Committee; When he removed the word "Natural," the media reported it. Does that mean they're out to get us? I don't think so. I think they were just reporting the news, as they're supposed to do.
Can we blame the American people for not trusting our party to handle the environment when the GOP Speaker of the House repeatedly hands over a key committee to a man who talks, thinks and acts like Don Young?
I don't think so!
Let's take a look at the kinds of things that some of our leaders do, or don't do. Here are two of my own personal experiences.
Early in January, 1996, shortly before the first primaries, REP wrote to all Republican presidential candidates asking for their environmental position papers. Only one of them responded: Indiana Senator Richard Lugar, who sent a personal letter, news clippings, and a chart showing his votes on environmental bills over the years. None of the others bothered to answer.
Can you guess which candidate got my vote in Illinois' March primary?
Several months later, during the summer, we finally got a position paper from Senator Dole. It was poorly written, defensive sounding, and filled with vague statements like the need for "common sense" policies. Not impressive.
At the end of January, 1996, I attended the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation's Presidential Conference. All the candidates had been offered time to address the crowd that had come from all over the northeast. The only GOP candidates who showed up were Alan Keyes and Robert Dornan.
Even though Bob Dole, Lamar Alexander, Jack Kemp, and Steve Forbes were all in New Hampshire hunting for votes--some of them literally just down the road--not one of them took the opportunity to speak at that well-advertised, well-attended environmental conference.
There were many Republicans at that meeting, and the absence of our leading candidates was much commented on, including by the press. Is the press at fault for reporting it? I don't think so.
Now let's look at our party's legislative record. Republicans like to brag about the pro-environment bills that passed the 104th Congress, and there were some: clean drinking water, battery recycling, pesticide control, money for new parks, etc. Good stuff! So why, some Republicans ask, don't we get credit for those good bills?
The problem is, those were passed in the 104th's last months, as the elections grew near and pressure rose to do something good for the environment. In fact, the parks bill was passed on the very last day of the 104th, and it almost didn't make it then because the Utah and Alaska Republicans kept pushing anti-wilderness proposals that other Republicans wouldn't accept.
What I want to know is... Why didn't GOP leaders bring those good bills forward early in the session? Why did they wait until the very end of the two-year session? Why did they waste a year and a half, and a lot of political goodwill, trying to undo two decades of landmark laws passed with strong bipartisan support and signed by Republican presidents?
We know that the vast majority of Americans support the laws that have cleaned up our air, water and toxic dump sites and saved many endangered species. Why, then, did our leaders try so hard to destroy some of the most popular and successful legislation that Congress has ever passed?
I have a few theories, but this is not the place for them. Instead, let me make a few suggestions as to what I believe our party should do to repair its anti-environmental image.
I believe that Republicans should:
- Push for campaign finance reform so elected officials won't be so endebted to the environmentally-destructive industries that pour huge sums of money into political campaigns. I'm referring to the timber, mining, petroleum, ranching, agribusiness, and land-development industries.
- Get the chip off our shoulders and stop blaming "others" for our bad public image. Let's admit that what some GOP leaders say and do (or don't do), some of their legislative proposals, and some of their votes are a big part of the problem.
- Stop hiding behind industry-funded front groups with grassroots sounding names that mount costly ad campaigns designed to scare voters into opposing new proposals to protect the environment.
- Open up an honest debate if we feel that established legislation needs reworking. Let's stop trying to sneak in as "riders" to disaster-relief bills those anti-environmental proposals that we know don't have a prayer of passing otherwise.
- Push a positive environmental agenda with specifics that people can understand and support. Get away from vague terms like "common-sense policies" that sound like we're hiding our real agenda.
If Republicans, both rank-and- file and leadership alike, will finally start showing by our words and deeds, our legislative proposals and our votes, that we share the American people's clearly-stated desire for protection of our environment and natural resources, our image problem will go away.
Otherwise, to paraphrase the immortal Pogo: We have met the enemy and -- on this one issue, at least -- he really and truly is us.
