Ashcroft defends lucrative contract

[almaty 19]

WASHINGTON — Even for a former attorney general, John Ashcroft's recent bill for monitoring an Indiana company accused of wrongdoing raised eyebrows: a $750,000 monthly fee plus what one member of Congress said amounted to $895 an hour, adding up to more than $7.5 million over five months

An invoice with those charges submitted by Ashcroft's company sparked debate in a House Judiciary subcommittee Tuesday on how the Justice Department awards such contracts and whether Ashcroft's selection by a U.S. attorney who once worked for him was a conflict of interest.

Ashcroft defended the contract to monitor Zimmer Holdings Inc., one of several manufacturers of orthopedic devices charged last year with violating anti-kickback laws. Under a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department, Zimmer is scheduled to pay Ashcroft's company between $27 million and $52 million over 18 months.

No government money is involved. But Rep. Linda Sanchez, D-Calif., chairwoman of the panel, said she worried that Ashcroft, a former Missouri senator, had received "what appeared to be a backroom, sweetheart deal" when chosen by U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie of New Jersey, who was under Ashcroft when Ashcroft was attorney general. Advertisement

"I also was concerned … that Mr. Ashcroft was selected with no public notice and no bidding, and that he had to use considerable time to prepare for the assignment and learn more about the business that he was contracted to monitor," Sanchez said.

Those assertions did not sit well with Ashcroft.

"This hearing cost far more in tax dollars than my monitorship will cost because it did not cost taxpayers one thin dime," Ashcroft said. "There is not a conflict. There is not an appearance of a conflict."

Ashcroft said his firm did not charge an hourly fee, which was cited by Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., but defended the fees as appropriate, given the complexity of the contract. He said his Washington-based consulting firm, The Ashcroft Group LLC, had assembled a team of 30 professionals for the contract, including former government lawyers, ex-FBI agents and accountants.

He deflected questions about what led to his selection but acknowledged that it had occurred with Zimmer's approval. If Ashcroft certifies after 18 months that Zimmer complied with settlement terms, a criminal complaint against the company would be dismissed. The complaint grew out of allegations the company used fake consulting agreements to persuade surgeons to use its products.

Ashcroft had initially declined to testify but changed his mind after the Judiciary Committee scheduled a vote last month to subpoena him. Citing terms under which he agreed to appear, Ashcroft left the panel hearing before noon, saying he needed to catch a plane to make a speaking engagement in Florida.

On Monday, the Justice Department announced that it was changing policies for deferred-prosecution agreements, in which companies agree to monitoring as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

Instead of permitting a single U.S. attorney from outside Washington to appoint a monitor, the Justice Department said that in the future, monitors would be picked by committees in the department with the approval of the deputy attorney general.

Rep. Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., a former prosecutor, told Ashcroft he was "shocked that the company was consulted as to whether you were acceptable. There ought to be something better than receiving the imprimatur of a company that, I suspect, was involved in wrongdoing. That is disturbing to me."

Republicans on the committee accused Democrats of taking Ashcroft to task unfairly. "There is probably not a lawyer in America who has the credentials Mr. Ashcroft has," said Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah.