For the first time, Congress must write a farm bill that fits within limits it agreed to during the last round of World Trade Organization negotiations.

Paying attention to the impacts domestic subsidies have on other countries is a switch, said veteran farm policy adviser Barry Flinchbaugh.

Before, "we just wrote a farm bill," explained the Kansas State University economist.

Now, subsidies that distort trade are limited to a $19.1 billion (US) cap.

"We will lose our leadership in the world community as far as trade policy is concerned if we violate that," said Flinchbaugh.

How close current farm programs come to the limit is unknown.

The U.S. government hasn't notified the WTO of its spending since 1997. Back then, about $6.2 billion in spending was considered to fall in the "amber box" of trade-distorting subsidies.

Since then, low prices have resulted in higher spending on marketing loan programs, which also fall into the amber box.

Sugar, dairy and peanut programs are considered amber, as are a host of other small special programs.

The last estimate of amber box spending was $16 billion for 2000, said Flinchbaugh.

There is also some argument whether emergency payments of $5.9 billion in 1998, $9.3 billion in 1999, and $7.1 billion in 2000 fall into the amber box.

Many policy makers believe the payments weren't trade distorting because they are based on the decoupled "transition" payments, which aren't considered to be amber box.

But some trade experts argue the emergency payments distort trade because they were triggered by low prices, and fed farmer expectations that they would continue to receive government help during the price crisis.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said the program had a "wealth effect" resulting in 225,000 to 725,000 extra acres of production.

Oilseed lobbyist John Gordley said the U.S. government's WTO notification, whenever it occurs, will be "one straw in the wind" as to what happens with its 2002 farm bill.

The notification is more than a year overdue, as is Canada's notification of recent spending on subsidies.

At a February conference, economist J.B. Penn observed that farm groups claim they want to honor WTO trade commitments, yet are proposing all sorts of programs that grossly exceed amber box limits.

So-called "green payments" for conservation practices will likely be monitored, said University of Saskatchewan economist James Rude.

"That area of the green box in the WTO has always been a bit contentious," he said.

Proposals for new countercyclical programs will likely come under the closest scrutiny. They are intended to support income when it falls below historic levels.

Political rhetoric on the trade question is double-edged.

"The word of the United States has got to be good," said Charlie Stenholm, the ranking Democrat on the House agriculture committee.

Stenholm said the new farm bill will abide by WTO limits: "Not one penny more, not one penny less," he stressed.

Appearing before the committee, the president of the trade-conscious National Cattlemen's Beef Association compared the situation to the nuclear arms race.

Wythe Willey observed that nuclear disarmament didn't happen unilaterally.

"We spent until the Russians broke the bank then we negotiated a settlement," he said in his testimony.

"If breaking the (European) farm subsidy bank is part of the overall negotiation strategy, then maximizing our amber box payments may have merit," Willey said, adding the extra amber box spending will give the U.S. something to negotiate away in future talks.

Canadian observers are watching the administration of president George W. Bush for further clues about the trade-friendliness of the 2002 farm bill.

Despite his rhetoric on breaking down trade barriers, Bush seems to be more inward looking and protectionist than the previous administration, said Fred Oleson, chief of market analysis for Agriculture Canada.

"The Americans have always had sort of a warped definition of free trade, and that's trade that's good for the United States," Oleson said.