staff and policy levels have worked closely with their European Commission counterparts on key matters and have publicly criticized them when unwarranted divergent outcomes have been reached. Divergent outcomes can sometimes occur due to different legal regimes and the possibility of different factual circumstances in different countries. When divergent outcomes do occur, the Department should engage with its foreign counterparts and see what can be done to minimize divergence in the future. 10. The Department of Justice recently obtained approval to negotiate a comity agreement with the Republic of Korea in the area of antitrust enforcement. Korea is, of course, not only a key strategic ally, but also an important trading partner. Although international trade and antitrust each occupies its own sphere, there is some concern among U.S. firms that foreign regulators are beginning to view antitrust enforcement as a means of achieving quite distinct trade-related goals, including to aid local industries. As Attorney General, would you support efforts to ensure that our trading partners do not use antitrust enforcement to erect trade barriers against U.S. firms? Would you make this a priority in the Department's negotiation of an antitrust comity agreement with Korea? Response: Antitrust laws should promote competition; they should not be used to defend a country's own home companies, or to try to exclude competitors from other nations. That is why it is critical that the Department work to ensure that other enforcers around the world rely on sound economics as the basis for antitrust enforcement. I would want this to be a priority in building the Department's relationship with the Korean antitrust agency and in all its international competition policy efforts. Responses of Alberto R. Gonzales to the Written Question of Chairman Arlen Specter Question 1: Judge Gonzales, in October of 2004, the Department of Justice issued the "Report of the Department's Task Force on Intellectual Property.” The Report recognized that the copyright industries play a vital role in this nation's economy, accounting for approximately 6 percent of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, and employing 4 percent of America's work force. The Report also makes specific recommendations for improving the Department's ability to deter and prosecute copyright piracy. Judge Gonzales, do you plan on carrying out Attorney General Ashcroft's commitment: "to build the strongest, most aggressive legal assault against intellectual property crime in our nation's history?" Response: I have great respect for intellectual property's role in the American economy and its importance to American consumers. As a result, I deeply appreciate the work of the Department's Intellectual Property Task Force and look forward to reviewing and acting on its recommendations if I am confirmed. As Attorney General, I would be committed to the aggressive enforcement of the nation's intellectual property laws as well as all other criminal laws duly enacted by Congress. Question 2: Judge Gonzales, this Committee held hearings last year on certain "peer-topeer" networks and services that go by names like "Kazaa," and "Grokster". The hearings revealed that, while peer-to-peer technologies provide legitimate uses, some of today's most popular services have created serious issues concerning copyright infringement. We also received troubling testimony that these networks provided children with easy access to free pornographic content; exposed private information of Americans to total strangers, and left computer networks vulnerable to computer worms, viruses, and Trojan horses. Judge Gonzales, if confirmed what will your Justice Department do to address the pornography, privacy, security, and copyright issues associated with peer-to-peer networks, and will you prosecute those who use peer-to-peer networks to distribute without authorization movies and music to millions around the world? Response: I share the Committee's concern that new digital technologies, including peer-to-peer networks, will continue to facilitate criminal offenses. I believe that the Department of Justice must adapt to the emergence of these technologies and vigilantly enforce the nation's laws. As Attorney General, I would seek to ensure that large-scale criminal copyright violations are investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted, be they committed over peer-to-peer networks or otherwise. Question 3: Judge Gonzales, copyright piracy transcends our borders and is a global problem costing copyright owners billions of dollars in lost revenues every year. What are your plans to work with your colleagues in the Executive Branch and your counterparts in other countries to address this problem? Response: I agree that copyright piracy and other forms of intellectual property theft are global problems that will require significant international cooperation to combat effectively. If confirmed, I would seek to enhance the Department's communication and cooperation with the law-enforcement agencies of other nations and with other federal, state, and local lawenforcement agencies within the United States. I would also seek to capitalize on opportunities to assist in educating and training foreign law-enforcement officials about investigating and prosecuting intellectual property crimes and the importance of doing so. January 12, 2005 The Honorable Arlen Specter Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building Dear Chairman Specter: During my recent confirmation hearing several Senators indicated that I could provide a response to a question in writing. Attached are my responses to such questions from you, Mr. Chairman, as well as Senators Graham, Schumer, Durbin, Kennedy, and Feingold. Sincerely, Alberto R. Angestes /ögl Alberto R. Gonzales Written Response of Alberto R. Gonzales Nominee to be Attorney General of the United States Question: "Do you believe that a professional military lawyer's opinion that this [August 1, 2002] memo may put our troops in jeopardy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice was a correct opinion?” Response: The August 1, 2002 memorandum has been withdrawn. That memorandum addressed only the federal criminal prohibition against torture codified in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A and did not address other possible sources of applicable law, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The memorandum did not address the question whether conduct that did not violate sections 2340-2340A might nevertheless violate the UCMJ. |