HR-7169-119
Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Sponsored by Josh Brecheen (R-OK)
What it does
This bill would prohibit federal executive agencies from awarding contracts to transportation network companies (such as app-based ride-share services) or shared-use mobility companies (such as taxis, limos, shuttles, and bikeshare) unless every driver performing work under that contract meets a set of requirements: being at least 21 years old, demonstrating sufficient English proficiency to communicate with the public and officials, holding a valid driver's license from a single U.S. state, and having passed a road test. Companies would be required to certify driver compliance, and any company found out of compliance would be barred from federal contracts for five years. An exception is made for deaf or hearing-impaired drivers who use American Sign Language.
Who benefits
Federal agencies and their employees who use government-contracted ride-share services and may benefit from standardized driver qualifications. Passengers who interact with federally contracted drivers, including federal workers, contractors, and visitors to federal facilities. Domestic-born or English-proficient drivers who compete for federally contracted ride-share work. Ride-share companies that already meet these standards and would face less competition from companies that do not. Law enforcement and emergency responders who interact with drivers on federal contracts.
Who is hurt
Drivers who are proficient in languages other than English but not in English, who would be ineligible to perform work under federal contracts regardless of their driving record or safety history. Ride-share and mobility companies with multilingual driver workforces that serve federal contracts, who would face compliance costs or loss of contract eligibility. Immigrant communities whose members work in the gig economy and rely on ride-share income. Ride-share companies operating in regions with large non-English-speaking populations. Federal agencies in areas with limited English-proficient driver supply, who may face reduced contractor availability or higher costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that English proficiency is a legitimate safety requirement for drivers transporting federal employees and contractors, as drivers must be able to read road signs, respond to law enforcement, and communicate in emergencies — all of which require a common language. They contend that analogous federal regulations already require English proficiency for commercial truck drivers under 49 C.F.R. § 391.11, establishing a clear precedent for language-based safety standards in federally regulated transportation. They further argue that the five-year debarment penalty creates a meaningful accountability mechanism to ensure companies do not certify non-compliant drivers to win contracts.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill's English proficiency requirement functions as a proxy for national origin discrimination, potentially conflicting with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and equal protection principles, since language ability is closely tied to national origin. They contend that the bill applies a blanket disqualification regardless of a driver's actual safety record, years of experience, or ability to navigate GPS-guided routes — and that no evidence is cited linking non-English-proficient drivers to higher accident rates in ride-share contexts. They further argue that extending debarment to entire companies for individual driver violations could impose disproportionate penalties on large platforms with thousands of contractors.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority to set conditions on federal contracts under the Spending Clause and its procurement powers (Art. I, §8). The bill does not directly regulate private ride-share markets — it conditions federal contract eligibility — which generally gives Congress wide latitude. However, if challenged, courts may examine whether the English proficiency requirement constitutes national-origin discrimination under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and post-Loper Bright (2024), any agency rules implementing the certification and debarment process would face independent judicial scrutiny rather than deference.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (agency heads) gains discretion to enforce compliance and impose debarment, subject to existing federal procurement law and judicial review; Congress retains oversight through the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Historical precedent
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 C.F.R. § 391.11) have long required English proficiency for commercial motor vehicle drivers operating in interstate commerce, establishing a regulatory precedent for language-based driver qualification standards in federally regulated transportation.