Hispanic farmers are in D.C. this week to express their dissatisfaction with a Justice Department proposal that would resolve a discrimination lawsuit they brought against the Department of Agriculture.

Lupe Garcia, the named plaintiff in the Hispanic farmers' lawsuit, and planter Noe Obregon protest a proposed settlement offered by the Justice Department. (Provided)

In May, the DOJ offered $1.3 billion to settle the lawsuit brought by dozens of Hispanic and female farmers who allege the USDA discriminated against them in the allocation of government loans and other aid. Stephen Hill, the lead lawyer in the Hispanic farmers’ case, Garcia v. Vilsack, said that the DOJ proposal is “woefully inadequate.”

In the 1990s, a group of African-American farmers successfully filed a similar suit against the Agriculture Department, alleging discrimination against them in the awarding of government loans and other assistance. The farmers received more than $1 billion under a 1999 class action settlement with the government — called Pigford after the suit’s lead plaintiff. The plaintiffs could get another $1.15 billion under a deal Congress is expected to vote on sometime this year.

Hill and the Hispanic Farmers have said the government should settle their suit in a manner similar to the way it resolve the Pigford case.

The administration, Hill said, “seems to think that they can single Hispanics out for different and less favorable treatment when it comes to the administration of justice, and we’re not going to abide by it.”

“We have been repeatedly and systematically discriminated against by USDA’s farm loan program,” plaintiff Modesta Salazar said in a statement. “The Secretary may think that things are improving — but they are not. Nothing has changed. The situation is as bad as ever and our Hispanic farmers are suffering because of this administration’s policies.”

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in May that the Barack Obama administration is committed to the fair and equal treatment of Hispanic and female farmers.

“We have made significant progress on addressing USDA’s civil rights record and look forward to providing substantial relief to Hispanic and women farmers in an expedited manner,” Vilsack said in a statement to Main Justice.

The fact that Congress did not appropriate $1.15 billion for a discrimination settlement agreement with black farmers before leaving town for a two-week recess didn’t leave the claimants out of luck,  a spokesman for Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) told Main Justice on Tuesday.

Thompson is among a handful of members of Congress who have been trying to usher the deal through Congress before March 31 — the last day the parties to the deal may leave the agreement. But the settlement, which is backed by the Obama administration, does not impose a deadline on Congress for the appropriation. Congress left town last Friday and will not return until April 12.

Cory Horton, Thompson’s spokesman, said the Mississippi Democrat is in close contact with congressional appropriators to ensure that money is doled out to the farmers as quickly as possible.

“The sooner we can get this done, the better,” Horton told Main Justice.

The National Black Farmers Association had urged President Barack Obama to declare the funds to be emergency spending, thus removing procedural hurdles that made quick congressional approval difficult. Horton said “all options are on the table” to help get the bill through Congress.

The settlement was intended to bring to an end lengthy litigation by black farmers who faced discrimination from the Department of Agriculture when obtaining farm loans.

The money is to compensate farmers who didn’t meet filing deadlines and were left out of an original 1999 settlement, in which the government agreed to pay the black farmers for past discrimination in lending and other USDA programs.

The agreement was announced last month, drawing support from Thompson, along with Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Artur Davis (D-Ala.), and Bobby Scott (D-Va.), and Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Kay Hagan (D-N.C.)

Congress did not appropriate money to fund a $1.15 billion discrimination settlement agreement with black farmers before leaving on Friday for a two-week recess.

The agreement was announced last month, contingent on Congress appropriating the money by a March 31 deadline, according to the principals. The settlement is now in jeopardy.

The settlement was intended to bring to an end lengthy litigation by black farmers who suffered discrimination at the hands of the Department of Agriculture in obtaining farm loans.

The money is to compensate farmers who missed filing deadlines and were left out of an original 1999 settlement, in which the government agreed to pay the black farmers for past discrimination in lending and other USDA programs.

“The president made a strong commitment to show leadership to get this done, and basically we haven’t seen him show that leadership,” John Boyd Jr., head of the National Black Farmers Association, told Reuters. “The president didn’t help us finish the job.”

The farmers’ group had urged President Barack Obama to declare the funds emergency spending, thus removing procedural hurdles that made quick congressional approval difficult.

Regan Lachapelle, a spokeswoman for Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.), told Main Justice that the majority leader is still committed to securing funds for the settlement as quickly as possible. A spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment from Main Justice.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) and other members of Congress held a news conference on Wednesday asking the Obama administration to help get the settlement through Congress. Conyers even called Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack from his cell phone during the news conference to set up a meeting later that day with the Obama administration official.

A USDA spokesman told The Hill on Wednesday that the agency was “actively working with Congress” to secure funds for the settlement.

A spokesman for Conyers on Friday didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

The Antitrust Division and the Department of Agriculture are moving ahead with workshops around the country on competition issues facing the agriculture industry.

The schedule, released today, includes hearings in 2010 in Iowa, Alabama, Colorado, Wisconsin, and Washington, D.C., and will explore issues in poultry, dairy, livestock and other topics in agriculture.

In August, Attorney General Eric Holder and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced plans to host conversations between farmers, ranchers, consumer groups, packers and processors to guide “legal and economic analyses of these issues.”

Antitrust Policy Deputy Philip Weiser followed up with a speech in St. Louis, Mo., outlining the Division’s interest in concentration in the seed industry, and in the dairy and livestock markets.

(St. Louis is also home to Monsanto, the seed giant that disclosed last month the Justice Department was investigating licensing practices that rival seed makers claimed were anti-competitive.)

In September, Antitrust chief Christine Varney traveled to Vermont with Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) for a hearing on competition issues in the dairy industry, where she called for “a careful review” of vertical integration in the industry.

In an unrelated hearing on Capitol Hill, Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.) also extracted a promise from Varney that she would also visit Wisconsin’s dairy farmers.

The hearings could prompt antitrust regulators to examine mergers that previously passed scrutiny, change the way milk is priced, address contracting practices in livestock, force changes in seed licensing terms, or smooth out differences between the USDA and the Justice Department, experts say.

Or, others say, the result could just be another report.

Farmers are a potent political constituency. They have long complained about being squeezed between the high prices they pay for seeds, fertilizer and other materials, and the low prices they receive for their crops, cattle, poultry and milk.

As farming has become more industrialized, large agri-processing companies have become more powerful.  ”Farmers, ranchers, and dairymen have fewer and fewer places to sell their products,” says Peter Carstensen, who teaches antitrust law at the University of Wisconsin Law School and studies competition issues in agriculture. ”It’s a failure of merger enforcement over 15 or 20 years, and not just the Bush administration.”

Others raise questions of transparency in pricing. In the poultry industry, for example, farmers raise birds owned by poultry processors, according to Michael Stumo, an antitrust lawyer who focuses on agriculture, and are paid through an obscure ranking system that some deem unfair. “I think it’s more likely [USDA] will start looking at proposing new regulations to improve the competitive aspects,” he said.

The public hearing format isn’t entirely new for the Antitrust Division. During the Clinton years, then-Antitrust official Joel Klein held town hall meetings and appointed a special counsel for agriculture within the antitrust division.

But the publicity surrounding the current hearings has caused some antitrust lawyers to wonder privately whether the Division has set expectations too high that it will bring a case, and whether the hearings will lead to anything beyond letting farmers air grievances.

Even as political theater, some observers say, the strategy is already starting to pay off with increased public interest in issues that effect farmers. Top editorial boards are also weighing in more frequently on competition issues generally. “There were three New York Times editorials in 10 days,” Carstensen said  “That’s unheard of.”

The strategy is “useful to neutralize political opposition or build support for litigation in these areas,” he said.

This post has been updated