PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Nov 1, 1995
Cooperator Program Act of 1995 - Amends the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and, in cooperation with eligible trade organizations (ETOs), carry out a foreign market development cooperator program to maintain and develop foreign markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products. Directs that such program be carried out through multiyear contracts or agreements between the Secretary and ETOs under which cost sharing assistance shall be provided by the Secretary to the ETOs as cooperators for the conduct of foreign market development activities, and to third party cooperators, under specified annual marketing plans. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) eligibility requirements; and (2) criteria for contract approval. Requires an ETO participating in the program to provide market development and customer support services outside the United States directed at foreign purchasers, potential purchasers, and users of U.S. agricultural commodities and products through trade servicing, technical assistance, and consumer education. Sets forth specific goals, such as to increase foreign consumer and commercial use of, develop long-term foreign demand for, and help overcome constraints to U.S. exports of, the commodity or product. Requires: (1) a participating ETO to coordinate its activities with those of the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) which shall assist ETOs in the development and operation of trade promotion programs that use product exhibits, trade teams, market information services, and trade referral services to expand international markets for U.S. agricultural commodities and products; and (2) an ETO to consult with the FAS to ensure that the ETO's annual marketing plan is consistent with and complements the FAS's foreign market development activities. Sets forth provisions regarding: (1) annual marketing plans; (2) oversight; and (3) cooperator organizations. Authorizes appropriations.
People & committees
Sen. Burns, Conrad R. [R-MT] · R–MT
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time and referred to the Committee on Agriculture.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.1375 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.1375 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.1375 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.1375 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.