A Republican bill with 3 Republican cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
This bill, known as the "Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2026" or the "UBER Act," establishes specific driver requirements for companies seeking federal contracts. It mandates that drivers performing work under these agreements must be at least 21 years old and possess specific English language skills. Drivers must also be able to read and speak English well enough to interact with the public, law enforcement, and officials, while also understanding traffic signs and completing reports. Additionally, drivers must be able to safely operate their vehicles through experience or training, hold a valid driver's license from a single jurisdiction, and pass a road test. Companies must certify that their drivers meet these standards to remain eligible for federal agreements.
Yes
- Scored +5
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
The bill protects drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired by exempting them from the English proficiency requirement.
- Scored +5
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?
The bill includes a specific exception to the English proficiency requirement for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language.
- Scored +3
Does this give the federal government more power?
The bill empowers executive agencies to set specific eligibility standards for federal contractors.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -5
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
The requirement that drivers be at least 21 years old prevents younger adults from qualifying for these contract positions.
- Scored -5
Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this?
The English proficiency mandate may disproportionately affect Hispanic American drivers who are non-native speakers.
- Scored -4
Is this likely to create jobs?
The bill establishes new age and English proficiency requirements that may reduce the pool of eligible drivers for federal contracts.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Enhanced Communication and Safety: Under Section 2(a)(1)(B), drivers would be required to read and speak English well enough to converse with the general public, law enforcement, and officials, understand traffic signs, and complete records. This could ensure clearer communication during transit.
-
Protection for the Deaf and Hearing Impaired: Section 2(a)(2) provides an exception to the English proficiency requirement for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language.
-
Verified Driving Competency: Section 2(a)(1)(C) and (E) require that drivers can safely operate their specific vehicle type through experience or training and have successfully completed a driver's road test, which addresses driver skill.
-
Standardized Licensing: Section 2(a)(1)(D) requires drivers to have a currently valid driver's license issued by only one State or jurisdiction.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Strict Eligibility Barriers: Section 2(a)(1) creates several requirements that could limit who can work under these contracts, including an age minimum of 21 years old and specific English proficiency standards.
-
Strict Penalties for Companies: Under Section 2(b), any company found to be in non-compliance with the driver requirement certifications can be debarred from receiving Federal contracts for a period of 5 years.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — The bill protects drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired by exempting them from the English proficiency requirement. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — The English proficiency mandate may disproportionately affect Hispanic American drivers who are non-native speakers. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — The requirement that drivers be at least 21 years old prevents younger adults from qualifying for these contract positions. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — The English proficiency and age requirements may act as barriers to employment for some low-income individuals.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to create jobs? — The bill establishes new age and English proficiency requirements that may reduce the pool of eligible drivers for federal contracts. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — The threat of 5-year debarment for non-compliance creates a significant regulatory burden for smaller transportation entities.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — The bill includes a specific exception to the English proficiency requirement for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill empowers executive agencies to set specific eligibility standards for federal contractors.
- 1/21/2026
- Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
- 3 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in House
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Randy FineRepublican · Florida
Barry MooreRepublican · Alabama
Christopher SmithRepublican · New Jersey