US Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rick Scott (R-FL) co-authored a letter along with Senate Republican colleagues responding to President Joe Biden’s proposed Federal Supplier Climate Risks and Resilience Rule (Contractor Climate Rule),
The Contractor Climate Rule would require all companies receiving more than $50 million in annual public contracts to set emissions reduction targets.
If the proposed regulations are enacted, some companies could be forced to shift their energy usage to 80% renewable electricity procurement by 2025 and 100% by 2030.
Contractors who fail to comply with these conditions could be deemed “non responsible” and barred from receiving federal contracts
Senators Rubio and Scott criticized the regulations, claiming they are unrealistic and will prevent American contractors from being able to adequately perform.
Rubio called the proposed rule “another attempt by the Biden Administration to push it’s radical ESG agenda on federal contractors.”
The letter responding to the proposed rule was sent to the main government agencies interacting with federal contractors: the Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
“It is simply astounding,” write the senators, “what is missing from the pages and pages of bureaucratic jargon: any discussion of how this regulation relates to the underlying missions of your agencies.”
Regarding the DOD, the senators questioned how imposing restrictive climate regulations on essential contractors will ensure America’s military defense needs.
Specifically, the senators claimed the regulations will hinder America’s military-industrial complex, which a recent DOD report claims will need to expand to respond to growing global threats.
Meanwhile, Biden hailed the proposed rule as a “historic action to address greenhouse gas emissions and protect the Federal Government’s supply chains from climate-related financial risks.”
In response, the senators warned they would “introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act and consider other legislative options to prevent this radical ESG policy.”
