Back-to-School Supplies Affordability Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Alsobrooks, Angela D. [D-MD]
- Committees
- Finance Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Aug 6, 2026
Bottom line
The bill seeks to lower costs for consumers and schools by rolling back certain tariffs on a range of school-related products.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Back-to-School Supplies Affordability Act," aims to reduce the cost of school supplies and educational materials by limiting the duties that can be imposed on them. It prohibits duties from exceeding the levels in effect on January 19, 2025, for a specified list of items and for other items designated by the Secretary of Commerce, subject to Congressional disapproval.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that this bill will provide much-needed financial relief to families, students, teachers, and schools by making essential educational supplies more affordable. They contend that current "arbitrary and chaotic tariffs" (as stated in the Sense of Congress) unnecessarily inflate prices, creating a burden, especially during back-to-school seasons. Reducing these duties would directly translate into savings, allowing more resources to be allocated to education.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that while the intent is good, the bill could potentially reduce federal revenue, which might need to be offset elsewhere. They might also raise concerns about the mechanism for designating new items, suggesting it could lead to an overly broad interpretation or create administrative burdens for the Department of Commerce. Some may also argue that tariffs protect domestic industries, and rolling them back could disadvantage American manufacturers of school supplies.
The bill is very short and clear, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core provisions quickly.
Section 2
Sense of Congress on Tariff Impact
This section expresses the opinion of Congress that tariffs that are "arbitrary and chaotic" increase the cost of school supplies for students, families, teachers, schools, and local governments. While not legally binding, it sets the legislative intent for the rest of the bill.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this statement clearly articulates the problem the bill aims to solve, highlighting the negative impact of tariffs on essential educational items and justifying the need for legislative action to reduce costs.
Critics contend
Critics might view this as a rhetorical device, arguing that a "sense of Congress" has no legal force and that the characterization of tariffs as "arbitrary and chaotic" is subjective and potentially misleading without further context on specific tariff policies.
Tradeoffs
The tension between the desire to reduce consumer costs and the potential for tariffs to protect domestic industries or generate revenue.
Section 3(a) and (b)
Cap on Import Duties for School Supplies
This core provision establishes that, starting from the bill's enactment date, no duty imposed on an article can exceed the duty rate that was in effect for that article on January 19, 2025. This limitation specifically excludes duties imposed under anti-dumping/countervailing duty laws (Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930) or safeguard measures (Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974).
Section 3(c)(2)
Explicitly Exempted School Supplies
This subsection provides a specific list of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) headings, subheadings, and statistical reporting numbers that are automatically covered by the duty limitation. This includes common items like office/school supplies (3926.10), backpacks/lunchboxes (4202.92), notebooks (4820.10.20), children's books (4903), calendars (4910), keyboards (8471.60.20), hairbrushes (9603.29.8010), pencils/crayons (9606), and pens/markers (9608).
Section 3(c)(1)
Secretary of Commerce's Discretionary Designation of School Supplies
This subsection allows the Secretary of Commerce, in coordination with the Secretary of Education, to designate additional items as "used in an elementary or secondary school classroom" to be covered by the duty limitation. This designation is subject to a joint resolution of disapproval by Congress, meaning Congress can veto specific additions.
Section 3(d)
Congressional Reporting on Exempt Items
This section mandates that the Secretary of Commerce submit a report to the Senate Finance Committee and House Ways and Means Committee every 180 days. The report must include a list of all items exempt from duties under the Act and a list of any new items designated by the Secretary under subsection (c)(1) during the reporting period.
Section 3(e)
Expedited Congressional Disapproval Process
This section defines a "joint resolution of disapproval" specifically for challenging the Secretary's designation of an item as a school supply. It then applies expedited legislative procedures from the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2192) to these resolutions, making it easier and faster for Congress to vote on disapproving a designation. It also specifies that these procedures are an exercise of the rulemaking power of each House.
The bill's duty limitation does not apply to duties imposed under Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 (anti-dumping and countervailing duties) or Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (safeguard measures).
Section 3(b)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to ensure that specific, established trade remedy laws are not inadvertently undermined by broader tariff legislation. It's a technical carve-out rather than an evasive maneuver.
Case for: Supporters argue that these exclusions are essential to preserve the integrity of U.S. trade law, allowing the government to continue addressing unfair trade practices (like dumping or subsidies) and sudden import surges that harm domestic industries, even for school supplies.
Case against: Critics might argue that these exceptions could still allow for significant duties on school supplies if a trade remedy investigation finds unfair practices, potentially undermining the bill's core goal of affordability in specific cases.
Estimated impact: Ensures that duties related to unfair trade practices or import surges can still be applied, potentially affecting the final cost of certain school supplies if such remedies are invoked.