SB 3121, the “Understanding Basic English Requirements Act of 2025” or “UBER Act,” would bar executive agencies from awarding federal transportation contracts to transportation network companies or shared-use mobility companies unless every driver performing work under the contract meets specified eligibility standards. Those standards include being at least 21 years old, holding a valid driver’s license issued by only one state or jurisdiction, passing a road test, being able to safely operate the vehicle, and being able to read and speak English well enough to communicate with the public, law enforcement, and officials, understand traffic signs, respond to inquiries, and complete reports and records. The bill creates an exception for drivers who are deaf or hearing impaired and use American Sign Language.
The bill also requires the company to certify compliance with these driver requirements as a condition of federal contracting. If a company is found not to be in compliance with its certification, it would be debarred from receiving federal contracts for five years. The bill defines “shared-use mobility company” broadly to include taxis, limos, bikesharing, ridesharing, ridesourcing, scooter sharing, and shuttle services, and defines “transportation network company” as a digital-network-based ride service connecting riders with drivers.
In terms of impact on state laws, the bill does not directly amend state licensing or labor statutes, but it would impose federal contracting conditions that effectively require participating companies and drivers to meet the bill’s standards in order to do business with the federal government. That could influence hiring, screening, and compliance practices for ride-share and other shared mobility providers operating on federal contracts in the continental United States and Hawaii, while leaving general state regulation of drivers largely intact.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor debate or recorded partisan split in the provided materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears aimed at strengthening language and safety requirements for federally contracted drivers, with an emphasis on communication and public safety. The main point of contention likely would be whether the English-proficiency requirement is an appropriate safety standard or an exclusionary barrier for immigrant and multilingual drivers, though that debate is not reflected in the supplied discussion materials.
SB 3121 would create a federal contracting rule for executive agencies that effectively conditions ride-share and shared-mobility contracts on driver qualifications, including English proficiency, age, licensing, and road testing. It would not directly rewrite state driver-licensing laws, but it would pressure companies seeking federal contracts to adopt screening and certification practices aligned with the bill. A noncompliant company could be barred from federal contracts for five years, giving the measure significant practical leverage over affected transportation network companies and shared-use mobility companies.
No committee transcripts or votes were provided, so there is no recorded legislative sentiment in the materials beyond the bill text itself. The proposal appears framed as a safety and communication measure, suggesting supporters would likely emphasize public safety, interaction with law enforcement, and the ability to read traffic signs and complete official records. At the same time, the English-proficiency requirement suggests the bill could draw criticism from those concerned about discrimination or reduced access to work for non-native English speakers.
The central likely point of contention is the English-proficiency mandate for drivers, which supporters may view as necessary for safety and effective communication, while opponents may see it as an unnecessary barrier to employment or a proxy for immigration-related restrictions. Another possible issue is the breadth of the bill’s reach, since it covers a wide range of shared mobility services and ties compliance to federal debarment. The exception for deaf or hearing-impaired drivers who use American Sign Language may reduce some concerns, but the bill still imposes a categorical language standard that could be debated as overinclusive or difficult to administer.