A Republican bill with no cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
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
The "Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2025," or "UBER Act," sets rules for transportation network and shared-use mobility companies to get federal contracts. To be eligible, every driver performing work under the contract must be at least 21 years old and have a valid driver's license from one state and a passed road test. Drivers must also be able to operate their vehicles safely and speak and read English well enough to talk to the public and law enforcement, though an exception exists for those using American Sign Language. Companies must certify that their drivers meet these rules. If a company is found to be non-compliant, it will be barred from federal contracts for 5 years.
Yes· 3 of 5
- Scored +4
Would people with disabilities be better off under this?
Includes a positive exception for those using American Sign Language.
- Scored +3
Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities?
Specifically provides an exemption for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use ASL.
- Scored +2
Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices?
Ensures drivers on federal contracts can communicate effectively with the public and law enforcement for safety.
The opposite· 3 of 10
- Scored -4
Would immigrants be better off under this?
English language and specific licensure requirements create barriers to employment on federal contracts.
- Scored -3
Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this?
Drivers under 21 are explicitly barred from working on these federal contracts.
- Scored -2
Would households on low incomes be better off under this?
May limit job options for low-income individuals who are non-native English speakers.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Safety and Communication: Drivers must be able to read and speak English to converse with the public, law enforcement, and officials, and understand traffic signs (Section 2(a)(1)(B)).
-
Driver Qualification: Drivers must be at least 21 years old, have a valid license from one jurisdiction, have passed a road test, and be able to safely operate their vehicle (Section 2(a)(1)(A), (C), (D), and (E)).
-
Inclusivity for Hearing Impaired: Drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language are exempt from the English speaking and reading requirement (Section 2(a)(2)).
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Employment Restrictions: People who do not meet the English proficiency requirements, are under 21, or lack the specific license and test requirements cannot work for companies performing these federal contracts (Section 2(a)(1)).
-
Company Penalties: Companies that fail to comply with the driver certifications can be banned from receiving Federal contracts for 5 years (Section 2(b)).
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? — Includes a positive exception for those using American Sign Language. Would immigrants be better off under this? — English language and specific licensure requirements create barriers to employment on federal contracts. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Drivers under 21 are explicitly barred from working on these federal contracts. Would Asian Americans be better off under this? — English proficiency requirements may disproportionately affect this demographic. Would business owners be better off under this? — TNC and mobility company owners face higher compliance risks and potential 5-year debarment. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — English proficiency requirements may disproportionately affect this demographic. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — May limit job options for low-income individuals who are non-native English speakers.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this give people more protection from unfair business practices? — Ensures drivers on federal contracts can communicate effectively with the public and law enforcement for safety. Does this make it easier to run a small business? — Adds compliance burdens and risks of debarment for small ride-share or shuttle companies seeking federal contracts. Is this likely to create jobs? — Imposes stricter eligibility requirements for drivers to work on federal contracts, potentially limiting employment opportunities.
- Education And Technology
- Does this put more rules on large technology companies? — Imposes stricter federal contract compliance rules on transportation network companies.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Increases federal oversight of driver qualifications for companies receiving federal contracts.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Specifically provides an exemption for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use ASL. Does this narrow racial gaps in how people are treated? — English proficiency requirements may disproportionately impact non-native English speakers. Is this likely to lift people out of poverty? — May reduce income opportunities for those not meeting English proficiency or age requirements.
- 11/6/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
- Introduced in Senate
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.