A high-ranking Justice Department official who suggested that U.S. Attorney John Brownlee be fired had earlier tangled with the prosecutor over his sweeping investigation of a drug company, Brownlee said Tuesday.

In testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Brownlee described receiving a call at home the night of Oct. 24 from Michael Elston, then chief of staff for the deputy attorney general.

At the time, Brownlee's Roanoke-based office was on the verge of completing a plea agreement in which Purdue Pharma would pay $634.5 million in fines for overpromoting its top-selling product, the prescription painkiller OxyContin.

Elston said he had been talking to attorneys for Purdue about concerns that prosecutors were moving too quickly, Brownlee testified.

"I asked him if he was calling on behalf of the deputy attorney general," Brownlee told the committee. "He told me that he was not."

Brownlee -- who said he had received authorization from top Justice officials in Washington earlier in the day to seal the deal -- said he "kind of dismissed" Elston and told him "he needed to back out of the case."

The following March, after the plea agreements had been finalized but before the company pleaded guilty, Brownlee was notified that Elston had placed his name on a list of U.S. attorneys to be considered for termination.

Brownlee stopped short of speculating that his encounter with Elston might have prompted the official to target him.

"I do not have any specific knowledge of exactly why Mr. Elston placed me on the list," Brownlee said in response to a question from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who chairs the Judiciary Committee.

Leahy's question briefly sidetracked the committee, which met Tuesday to discuss the plea agreement with Purdue, into the topic of the firings of nine U.S. attorneys.

The scandal has prompted calls for the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales amid criticism that the Justice Department sought to remove prosecutors who pursued cases against Republicans or failed to bring charges against Democrats.

Elston, who served as chief of staff for Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, became immersed in the furor and resigned last month to join a private law firm.

Although Brownlee did not accuse Elston of retaliating against him after their terse telephone conversation in October, he did make it clear that he was troubled by the official's conduct.

Brownlee testified that when Elston told him in March that his name was on a list of prosecutors to be considered for termination, he was concerned enough to notify officials at the Justice Department.

He also called McNulty, who has since left his post. "He assured me that Mr. Elston was a good man," Brownlee testified. "I had my own views of that."

In comments following his testimony, Brownlee said he had never received a call like the one from Elston, who seemed to be advocating more for Purdue than for the government's position in the case.

"It was odd," Brownlee said.

Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said the agency "encourages healthy internal debate and discussion on complex cases like this one.

"U.S. Attorney Brownlee settled the case in a manner that was supported by the department," Boyd said.

Boyd declined to discuss the lists, except to say they were merely "thoughts for discussion" and did not represent the department's final views on any prosecutor.

"Whether they were on any list or not, U.S. attorneys currently serving, including Mr. Brownlee, enjoy the full confidence and support of the attorney general and Department of Justice," Boyd said.

Brownlee, who has served as the top federal prosecutor for the western half of Virginia since 2001, said he asked Elston in March why his name was included on the list. Brownlee said Elston told him that he could not remember.

When he resigned last month, Elston was the fifth Justice Department official to leave his post since controversy over the firings began.

His name first surfaced when one of the fired U.S. attorneys, Bud Cummins of Arkansas, disclosed in March that Elston had phoned him to suggest that senior department officials would retaliate against the prosecutors if they discussed their terminations publicly.

After Brownlee fielded questions about his role in the controversy, the committee turned its attention to the Purdue prosecution, which produced guilty pleas from three company officials and one of the largest fines to be imposed against a pharmaceutical company.

Brownlee has faced criticism on two fronts: from those who say he should have pushed for jail sentences; and from others who say the prosecution is a setback in the effort to provide relief to millions of Americans who suffer from chronic pain.

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., didn't buy Brownlee's explanation that the government had no evidence that top Purdue officials knew of a marketing campaign in which its sales representatives downplayed OxyContin's potential for abuse and addiction.

"I respect your professionalism, and I respect your judgment," Specter said. "But speaking from an oversight capacity, I disagree with you."

Other committee members praised the U.S. attorney's office in Roanoke, which with a relatively small staff spent five years pursuing a prosecution that had national implications.

"It could have been prosecuted in any district in America, I suppose," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.