U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

81–697PDF 2013

NEXT STEPS IN THE U.S.–REPUBLIC OF

KOREA ALLIANCE

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, 

NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 27, 2013

Serial No. 113–31

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

STEVE STOCKMAN, Texas 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

TREY RADEL, Florida 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

LUKE MESSER, Indiana 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

AMI BERA, California 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE

TED POE, Texas, Chairman 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

TOM COTTON, Arkansas 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

BRADLEY S. SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, Massachusetts 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. James P. Zumwalt, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of East Asian 

and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ................................................... 9

The Honorable Thomas M. Countryman, Assistant Secretary, International 

Security and Nonproliferation, U.S. Department of State ................................ 17

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. James P. Zumwalt: Prepared statement ........................................................ 11

The Honorable Thomas M. Countryman: Prepared statement ............................ 19

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 36

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 37

(1)

NEXT STEPS IN THE U.S.–REPUBLIC OF 

KOREA ALLIANCE 

THURSDAY, JUNE 27, 2013

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC AND

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, NONPROLIFERATION, AND TRADE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The subcommittees will come to order. Before we 

begin, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Texas, 

Judge Poe, chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, for joining the Asia and Pacific Subcommittee and holding this hearing this afternoon. I, of course, 

want to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from American 

Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega; and the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Sherman, the ranking member of the TNT Subcommittee, who I 

believe will be here shortly. 

This year marks a truly important milestone in the U.S.-South 

Korean alliance as we commemorate the 60th anniversary of the 

armistice that ended the Korean War. This conflict claimed the 

lives of more than 170,000 U.S. and South Korean soldiers and 

more than 370,000 civilians. Sixty years later, our friendship endures and, in fact, has grown stronger. 

A few weeks ago, I had the opportunity to visit South Korea with 

my good friend, the ranking member, Mr. Faleomavaega, to meet 

with President Park, the minister of foreign affairs, and other Korean Government officials, as well as tour the demilitarized zone 

and visit with our American troops who live and work in that 

stressful and dangerous environment. 

Today in South Korea, a once war-torn nation has become a 

world class economy and leader in high tech innovation. South Korea’s growing commitment to democracy, human rights, and the 

rule of law is in strong contrast to its northern neighbor. 

The past 60 years of the U.S.-South Korea relationship is best 

characterized as a close friendship that has steadily grown. Today, 

I think I can confidently say that our bilateral relationship is at 

its best, particularly given the passage and implementation of the 

U.S.-Korea free trade agreement just a little over a year ago. The 

bond between the people of the U.S. and the people of South Korea 

is strong and continues to grow. 

2

One group that certainly deserves special recognition is the Korean American community, which has worked tirelessly to ensure 

that the U.S.-Korea relationship remains strong, relevant, and forward-looking. 

With the threat of North Korean belligerence always imminent, 

it is in the U.S.’s and South Korea’s best interest to ensure that 

the next 60 years of this relationship are as strong and as vibrant 

as the past 60 years. 

South Korea’s economy depends heavily on clean, low-cost energy. Without the benefits of domestic energy resources, South 

Korea depends almost entirely on imported energy with the exception of power generated by its domestic nuclear energy power 

plants. Given the ROK’s continued economic growth, it is unlikely 

that the government can continue to provide enough low-cost electricity to fuel its economy. The ability to recycle nuclear fuel would 

ease this problem. That is why it is vitally important for the U.S. 

and South Korea to complete negotiations on a modern, 21st century civilian nuclear agreement. 

The adoption of a new 123 agreement would also have a direct 

impact on American jobs; in particular, manufacturing jobs for 

those industries supplying South Korea with the components it 

needs to grow and maintain its power supply. 

Earlier this month, I joined Chairman Royce and Ranking Member Engel as well as Judge Poe, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Collins, 

and Mr. Kinzinger in introducing H.R. 2449, legislation to extend, 

for 2 years, the current U.S.-South Korean civilian Nuclear Energy 

Cooperation Act, which is scheduled to expire in March 2014. An 

extension agreement while negotiators continue to work on and refine substantive issues, I believe, is an important and necessary 

step in this process. I look forward to working with the chairman 

and my colleagues in moving the legislation forward. 

When President Park addressed a joint session of Congress last 

month, she reaffirmed South Korea’s commitment to the vision of 

a world without nuclear weapons, which must start on the Korean 

Peninsula. 

South Korea has said time and time again that it is firmly committed to the principle of nonproliferation. In fact, South Korea 

hosted the second Nuclear Security Summit last year. On the other 

hand, North Korea has made its intentions quite clear. The Kim 

dictatorship has no desire to halt its nuclear weapons program. Its 

recent calls for talks with conditions have to be taken, obviously, 

with a grain of salt. 

North Korea takes no responsibility for its behavior but blames 

the United States for the worsening situation on the peninsula. 

The U.S. must maintain a consistent position that makes it crystal 

clear to the regime in Pyongyang that we will not concede to its 

unreasonable demands. I hope the administration pursues a path 

that will increase security for not only South Korea but for the 

international community as well. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel this afternoon. And, 

with that, I yield to the ranking member, the gentleman from 

American Samoa, Mr. Faleomavaega, for his opening statement. 

I would note that we are going to have votes on the floor shortly, 

so we will be interrupted. Also, both Judge Poe and myself are in 

3

the Judiciary Committee, and we are marking up one of the immigration bills as I speak, so we are going to be going around and 

trying to tag team this hearing to some degree. We hope that 

doesn’t disrupt the hearing too much. 

I recognize the gentleman from Samoa, the ranking member, Mr. 

Faleomavaega. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want 

to thank you both and Chairman Poe for your leadership in calling 

this joint subcommittee hearing. 

I also want to offer my personal welcome to Secretary Zumwalt 

and Secretary Countryman for being witnesses to our hearing this 

afternoon. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I recently had the opportunity to meet 

with President Park Geun-hye at the Blue House on April 29 this 

year. President Park is the first freely elected woman leader among 

the nations of northeast Asia and the first woman President of the 

Republic of Korea. She is certainly a role model for women everywhere. 

I just want to note as something of an historical matter, Mr. 

Chairman, that she is on her way now to Beijing to meet with 

President Xi of the People’s Republic of China, what I consider a 

very interesting movement in terms of what is happening there. 

I was deeply touched that the first matter which she raised with 

me during our meeting was an op. ed. I wrote about the comfort 

women issue, which was published by the Kyunghyang Seoul newspaper on the very day we met with her. 

As you know, during World War II, many young girls were forced 

into wartime brothels. Two hundred thousand Asian women, Mr. 

Chairman, were brought in by Japanese imperial forces. And many 

of these young girls that were forced into sexual slavery were from 

the Republic of Korea. Today, we affectionately refer to these 

women as our godmothers. I refer to them as my mothers. Their 

story is near and dear to my heart. And this is why the first hearing I held as chairman of this subcommittee was about them. 

I will never forget the courage Madam Park showed in attending 

that hearing, where three victims, two Korean ladies and one 

Dutch lady, sitting right over there testified. At the time in 2007, 

even Members of Congress were hesitant to show public support for 

these women who were forced into sexual slavery during World 

War II, but Madam Park did not hesitate. She sat prominently in 

the front row of this hearing room. That was the first Korean leader ever to attend a hearing in the U.S. Congress in support of these 

women. 

I want to once more publicly commend Mr. Dongchan Kim and 

his organization of the Korean American Civic Empowerment for 

taking the lead in spearheading community efforts for the successful passage of House Resolution 121, which calls upon the Japanese 

Government to issue a formal apology for what they did to some 

200,000 Asian women during World War II. 

I also want to add my voice in support of fully implementing the 

U.S.-Korean free trade agreement. On March 20 of this year, 

former chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, our dear friend and colleague, of the Foreign Affairs Committee and I introduced H.R. 

1279, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Fairness Act, a biparVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:28 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\_AP\062713\81697 HFA PsN: SHIRL
4

tisan legislation which will grant Republic of Korea nationals a 

similar visa status for skilled workers as was granted to Australian 

citizens following the successful negotiation of the U.S.-Australia 

free trade agreement. Subsequent to the adoption of the free trade 

agreement with the United States, Australia was able to obtain 

10,500 E3 visas per year, which are similar to the H1B visas from 

the United States, for which only citizens of Australia are eligible. 

Due to some oversight, negotiators failed to work out an agreement 

like this for the Republic of Korea during the free trade agreement 

negotiations with Korea. And this is why Congresswoman RosLehtinen and I worked hard in the aftermath to create parity for 

the Republic of Korea. 

As a longstanding ally of the United States, we believe the Republic of Korea deserves fair treatment. So we put forward a bill 

which would grant the Republic of Korea nationals 10,500 visas per 

year for skilled workers that meet the eligibility requirements. 

Given that our bill provides parity, we were hopeful that our bill 

would be passed by this House, but, regrettably, the Korean Embassy here in Washington decided they did not want parity. They 

just wanted a little more than 10,000 visas. I am not supportive 

of this higher quota, Mr. Chairman, because it is insensitive to 

other countries and must specify to our American workers who do 

not need to be needlessly displaced. I also do not believe we should 

open up a visa bidding war with the trans-Pacific partnership negotiations coming up. 

I am supportive of the 123 civil nuclear cooperation agreement, 

although I do believe we need to take some time to work out our 

differences regarding how to treat fuel-making technologies. So I 

am pleased that we have simply extended the current agreement 

for 2 years until we can resolve these technicalities. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. And thank you for the opportunities. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for his statement. We will 

recognize Chairman Poe for his 5-minute opening statement. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Chairman Chabot, for working to put this 

important hearing together about the United States-South Korea 

alliance and the 123 agreement. 

The South Korean people are allies of the United States. We 

have a lot of allies, the United States does. But South Korea has 

a special relationship as an ally. Our two nations, our peoples have 

both shed blood together on the same soil in South Korea. That 

bond makes this relationship unique. South Korea has always been 

important to us because of its national security interest in its own 

right but our national security interest. And with President Kim in 

North Korea, or Junior, as I like to call him, being a real threat 

to South Korea and the United States and the rest of the world, 

it needs to be obvious to us and the South Koreans and the rest 

of the world that our relationship is strong and will be stronger. 

One example of the strength of our relationship is our cooperation on civilian nuclear energy in the last 30 years. We have American companies in South Korea and South Korean companies here 

in the United States. I have a large Korean community in my district in Houston. 

5

And it was good to learn finally—I didn’t know—that the ranking 

member was also a University of Houston Law School graduate. I 

did actually graduate from there after you did, but it is good to 

hear that. 

In any event, the agreement that we have has allowed cooperation. And the so-called 123 agreement expires next March. It turns 

out a new agreement has been tough to figure out and get done. 

The sticking point seems to be disagreements over fuel-making 

technologies, such as enrichment and reprocessing. Enrichment 

and reprocessing capabilities are important because they can be 

used to make material for nuclear weapons. 

South Korea wants the new 123 agreement to include U.S. advance consent for future Korean civilian reprocessing and enrichment activities. South Korea says it needs advance consent to deal 

with nuclear waste, but it is unclear how dry cask storage would 

solve this problem. I am sure our two witnesses will answer that 

question specifically. 

U.S. law states that it is U.S. policy not to give advance consent 

to enrichment or reprocessing. There are political issues in the region. And international agreements already have been made that 

have to be considered as well, but time is running out. This past 

April, the United States and South Korea agreed to a simple 2-year 

extension of the old agreement. I do support extending this agreement because it will prevent thousands of Americans from losing 

their jobs, from reactor vendors to equipment suppliers. And there 

are hundreds of millions of dollars in bilateral nuclear trade between our two Nations. We just can’t keep extending agreements 

indefinitely. It reminds me of the CR that we constantly do on the 

House floor on our budget. 

We certainly don’t or I don’t want another 2 years to pass and 

find us right back here, same witnesses, same story, Groundhog 

Day, trying to make a decision about what to do. 

Our business community needs certainty. Businesses, especially 

in this industry, cannot make financial decisions and other business decisions that may be revoked in 2 years. Congress needs to 

also know that the laws it passes will be followed by this administration and any administration. 

I am looking forward from our witnesses as to what the United 

States’ position should be on these negotiations when it comes to 

advance consent and enrichment. I also want to know the difference between 2 years and a long-range solution and what their 

ideas are on that. I do hope both sides understand the limitations 

of the other in a long-term deal until it is made. 

And I also want to do comment about the issue that the ranking 

member has brought out of the comfort women. That is an issue 

that is very important, not just for South Korea and Japan, but it 

is important for us to move forward and get that issue resolved as 

soon as possible. That is an historical event that cannot be ignored. 

And we should not ignore it here so many, 60 years later. 

But that is a different issue for a different day. And I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for his statement. I would 

just note the Chair agrees with both of the gentlemen on the comfort women issue and thank them both for bringing it up. 

6

We have time to finish the opening statements. We will recognize 

the ranking member of the TNT Subcommittee, the gentleman 

from California, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

The Republic of Korea and the United States enjoy a strong strategic alliance and warm friendship. The relationship is based on 

our commitment to security, to democracy, and prosperity. October 

1, 2013 will mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the mutual defense treaty between the United States and the Republic of 

Korea. Nearly 40,000 members of the United States Armed Forces 

lost their lives defending the people of Korea. Nearly 30,000 troops 

are stationed in South Korea today. The United States has stood 

with Korea on the comfort woman issue, even though another 

strong ally, the United States, is on the other side. And the Korean 

American community, with its 1.7 million members, is an important part of the bilateral relationship and of the American fabric. 

I did not support the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, which became effective roughly a year and a few months ago. We were told 

at the time that this would reduce the trade deficit with South 

Korea. In fact, that deficit has increased. The deficit hit an all-time 

high of $2.4 billion in April 2013. Imports hit a record high while 

U.S. exports to South Korea actually were less January to April 

2013, then January to April 2012 before the agreement really went 

into effect. This translates into a loss of jobs. We need a more balanced trade policy. 

And, as I have said before in this room, if we continue our trade 

policy, there will be a catastrophic drop in the value of the United 

States dollar. But don’t worry. It won’t happen in the next 5 years 

or probably won’t happen in the next 5 years. 

North Korea continues its threats of military aggression against 

our ally, including the March 10 sinking of the naval ship, the 

bombardment of Yeonpyeong Island. The 2013 Korean crisis was 

an escalation of military tensions by North Korea against South 

Korea. The United States and Japan began—that is to say it was 

aimed at all three of those allies, and it began following the launch 

of the so-called satellite December 12, 2012 and the third nuclear 

test February 12th, 2013. 

Kim Jong-Un, the new leader of this totalitarian regime, has 

used extreme rhetoric. At more than one point, he has threatened 

imminent attack against the United States homeland. The international community has condemned North Korea in its military aggression. In March 7, 2013, the United Nations Security Council 

resolution 2094 is just the latest example of that. 

Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and I have introduced the 

Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Accountability Act of 

2013. We introduced the earlier version of that act back in 2011. 

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor that legislation, which would target those firms and states that assist North Korea, as well as Iran 

and Syria, develop and build nuclear weapons and other weapons 

of mass and destruction. 

The main reason our subcommittee is involved in these hearings 

is because of the focus on the nuclear cooperation agreement between South Korea and the United States. South Korea plans to 

significantly expand its already advanced nuclear program in the 

7

coming years and decades. The United States has been committed 

to a denuclearization of the peninsula and, thus, is opposed to reprocessing and enrichment on the peninsula. 

The gold standard model for 123 agreements or nuclear cooperation agreements is embodied in our agreement with the United 

Arab Emirates, which legally binds U.S. partners to foreswear enrichment and reprocessing. So it comes down to enrichment and reprocessing. 

The United States and South Korea have recently agreed on a 

2-year extension of our agreement, rather than revising the agreement, but both countries would like to see a long-term deal, so 

would like to enrich uranium and reprocess spent fuel rods to develop and expand its nuclear power industry. I commend the administration for not agreeing to advance consent rights for plutonium reprocessing of fuel of U.S. origin. South Korea wants a nuclear agreement that provides U.S. advance consent for such reprocessing. And that would carry deep proliferation concerns. 

I look forward to further negotiations with South Korea and to 

the resumption of this hearing after votes. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We have votes on the floor. I estimate we will be back in about 1⁄2 hour to 45 minutes for the series of votes. The subcommittees 

are in recess. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. CHABOT. The subcommittees will be back in order. We have 

several members who might like to make 1-minute statements. We 

will begin with the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Wilson. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And, indeed, I would like to express my appreciation of our relationship with the Republic of Korea. I have had the unique opportunity to visit South Korea several times. And each time I visit, it 

is just awesome to see how dynamic the people are and what a 

great alliance that we have of shared values of working together, 

just honored to be here and look forward to working, particularly 

with a civilian nuclear agreement. I just see such positive. In my 

home State of South Carolina, we have Westinghouse Nuclear 

Fuels/Toshiba. It is a classic case of mutual self-benefit. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, is recognized for 1 

minute. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding the hearing and for our guests for coming to testify. 

The alliance between the United States and the Republic of 

Korea has brought stability, security, and prosperity to the peninsula and the Asian Pacific region. Recently, the U.S.-Korean free 

trade agreement has demonstrated our mutual commitment of 

shared future economic growth and prosperity. Trade between our 

countries totaled around $100 billion in 2012. It is expected to grow 

significantly in the coming years because of the liberalized trade 

between the two countries. 

That is not to say we don’t face our challenges. Obviously we see 

with North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic program, we have to conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:28 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\_AP\062713\81697 HFA PsN: SHIRL
8

tinue to stay on our toes and stay committed to a situation there, 

a peaceful solution. 

I want to briefly discuss extending the bilateral civilian nuclear 

cooperation, better known as a 123 agreement. As an original cosponsor of 2449, I fully support the 2-year extension that has been 

agreed to in principle by the negotiators from the U.S. and the Republic of Korea. Substantial progress has been made, but more 

time is needed to complete a new agreement that recognizes both 

our country status as global leaders of nuclear energy. 

I agree with Assistant Secretary Countryman’s testimony. The 

swift passage of this 2-year extension would give both countries the 

confidence that they need that our cooperation will continue 

smoothly. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Holding, is recognized 

for 1 minute. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With the administration’s refocus on the Asia Pacific region and the growing influence 

of China in that region, the importance of maintaining strong economic and security ties with our allies in the Pacific has never 

been more vital. The United States and the Republic of Korea have 

enjoyed an enduring strategic relationship; indeed, Mr. Chairman, 

an alliance forged on the battlefield over 60 years ago and one that 

grows closer today with tightened economic ties and increased 

threats from hostile neighbors. 

Later today, Mr. Chairman, in the Judiciary Committee, I will 

offer an amendment to help realize the full potential of the free 

trade agreement passed in 2011 by increasing the number of visas 

available for highly educated and highly skilled Korean workers 

and students. The addition of these visas will be an added benefit 

to the U.S. economy and further solidify our strategic relationship. 

I thank you for calling this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. We will now introduce the 

panel here this afternoon. I will begin with Mr. Zumwalt, who 

began his tour as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Japan 

and Korean Affairs on January 3, 2012. He previously served as 

Embassy Tokyo’s Deputy Chief of Mission. His prior assignments 

include Director of the Officer of Japanese Affairs, Economic Minister Councilor in Tokyo, and Economic Minister Councilor in Beijing. He has also worked on the Korea and Philippine Desk in 

Washington. Mr. Zumwalt is fluent in Japanese and also speaks 

some Chinese and French. 

Now I would like to introduce Thomas Countryman, who is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service and is currently serving 

as the Assistant Secretary for International Security and Nonproliferation. He previously served as the principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Political Military Affairs and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs. Mr. Countryman began his 

State Department career in 1982, serving as a councilor and political officer in Belgrade. His prior assignments include Director for 

Near East and South Asian Affairs at the National Security Council, Minister Councilor for Political Affairs at the American Embassy in Rome; Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in 

9

Athens; and as Foreign Policy Adviser to General James Conway, 

the commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. 

He speaks Serbo-Croatian, Arabic, Italian, Greek, and German. 

Just for the record, I took a little Latin in high school and a little 

French in college. And I think I got a C in both. 

We will now recognize each of the witnesses for 5 minutes. We 

have a lighting system; a yellow light will let you know that you 

have 1 minute to wrap up, the red light indicates it is time to conclude your testimony. Mr. Zumwalt, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES P. ZUMWALT, ACTING ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Chairman Chabot, Chairman Poe, Mr. 

Faleomavaega, members of the subcommittees, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss this important topic. 

I have submitted a longer statement for the record. And, with 

your permission, I would like to deliver brief oral remarks. 

The U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance is a linchpin of security and 

prosperity in Northeast Asia, and our bilateral ties have never 

been stronger. Today, while our alliance continues to counter the 

threat from North Korea, we are expanding our cooperation to 

meet 21st-century challenges. 

During her May 8 address to a joint meeting of Congress, Republic of Korea President Park Geun-hye said, ‘‘Along our journey, we 

have been aided by great friends, and, among them, the United 

States is second to none.’’ What she was referring to is our alliance 

was forged in shared sacrifice in the Korean War. Today, we continue to strengthen and adapt our alliance to meet existing and 

emerging security challenges. 

We have made significant progress on the blueprint for the future of our alliance, which outlines the conditions for the transition 

of wartime operational control to a Republic of Korea-led defense 

in December 2015. We continue to improve our interoperability and 

readiness through annual exercises. 

Our cooperation on global challenges is an increasingly important pillar of our alliance. Today, American and Korean soldiers 

stand side by side in Afghanistan. Korea has been a leader in supporting Iran sanctions. We are working together on Syria. 

Our deep economic cooperation forms the engine of our strategic 

relationship. The Republic of Korea is Asia’s fourth largest economy and our seventh largest trading partner. Our two countries’ 

trade topped 100 billion U.S. dollars in 2012. This year marks the 

first anniversary of the entry into force of the U.S.-Korea Free 

Trade Agreement. This agreement is increasing trade and investment between our two countries and provides significant new opportunities for U.S. exporters. We look forward to even more economic benefits as more provisions of the agreement are implemented. 

Our ties include strong cooperation in science and technology, on 

cyber issues and on climate change. The United States and Republic of Korea are also global leaders and partners on peaceful nuclear energy. We both recently decided to seek an extension of our 

10

existing civil nuclear cooperation agreement, and we are in the 

process of negotiating a successor agreement to continue and expand this cooperation. The administration is ready to work with 

Congress to achieve an early extension of the existing agreement, 

and we are grateful for your efforts on the related pending draft 

legislation. 

The foundation of our partnership rests on our people-to-people 

ties and our shared commitment to freedom, democracy, and the 

rule of law. Last year, more than 1 million South Koreans visited 

the United States. The Republic of Korea sends more university 

students to the United States per capita than any other major 

economy. The United States is the clear top choice for Korean entrepreneurs, scientists, and engineers who wish to come here to 

create businesses and create new jobs and develop technologies. 

And we very much support efforts to facilitate these exchanges. 

Let me now turn to our greatest challenge: North Korea. Many 

of the DPRK’s provocations in recent months have directly targeted 

the United States and the Republic of Korea. We remain fully committed to the defense of the Republic of Korea, and we will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our ally in the face of 

these provocations. 

Despite North Korea’s recent overtures, we have yet to see concrete steps suggesting that North Korea is prepared to negotiate on 

the key issue: The verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. We will continue to coordinate closely with the ROK and with 

other Six-Party partners. The United States remains committed to 

authentic and credible negotiations to implement the September 

2005 Joint Statement of the Six-Party Talks and to bring North 

Korea into compliance with its international obligations. We will 

not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed state. Nor will we reward the absence of bad behavior or provide compensation merely 

for talking. U.S.-North Korea relations, moreover, cannot fundamentally improve without sustained improvement in inter-Korean relations. 

In conclusion, the U.S.–ROK alliance has never been stronger. 

And both our countries are working actively to prepare for the future. President Park’s landmark visit to Washington this past May 

opened a new chapter in our partnership. Strong and enduring congressional support for our alliance and partnership with the Republic of Korea has been critical to the success of our relationship for 

the last six decades and will be even more important in the future. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify on this important topic. I am 

happy to answer any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zumwalt follows:]

11


81697a-1.eps

Testimony of James P. Zumwalt 

Acting Assistant Secretary of State 

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs 

U.S. Department of State 

Before the 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade 

June 27, 2013 

Next Steps in the U.S. - Republic of Korea Alliance 

Chaimlan Chabot, Chairman Poe, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Shennan, and Members 

ofthe Subcommittees, r am pleased to appear before you today to discuss this 

important topic. The U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) alliance is a linchpin of 

security and prosperity in Northeast Asia, and our bilateral ties have never been 

stronger. This year marks the 60th anniversary ofthe U.S.-ROK Mutual Defense 

Treaty, the foundation of our alliance and a force for peace and stability on the 

Korean Peninsula. Over the past six decades, our close cooperation has evolved 

into an increasingly global partnership, and our economic and people-to-people ties 

are as robust as ever. Today, while our alliance continues to cOlmter the threat 

from North Korea, we are expanding our cooperation to meet 21 st -century 

challenges on the Korean Peninsula, in the Asia-Pacific region, and beyond. 

A Future-Oriented Alliance 

During her May 8 address to a joint meeting of Congress, Republic of Korea 

President Park Geun-hye said: "Along our journey, we have been aided by great 

friends and among them, the United States is second to none." Our alliance was 

forged in shared sacrifice in the Korean War sixty years ago, and it continues to 

provide an anchor for peace and security in the region. Today, we continue to 

strengthen and adapt our alliance to meet existing and emerging security 

challenges. 

As stated by Presidents Obama and Park in their May 7 joint declaration, we have 

made significant progress on the goals outlined in our 2009 Joint Vision for the 

Alliance statement. The blueprint for the future of our alliance includes our 
12


81697a-2.eps

Strategic Alliance 2015 plan, which outlines the conditions for the transition of 

wartime operational control (OPCON) to a Republic of Korea-led defense in 

December 2015. Our two countries continue to improve our interoperability and 

readiness through annual joint and combined exercises, and through a bilateral 

Extended Deterrence Policy Committee that focuses on improving the 

etlectiveness of extended deterrence against threats posed by North Korean nuclear 

and weapons of mass destruction programs. 

Cooperation on Global Issues 

Presidents Obama and Park on May 7 highlighted recent successes and publicly 

committed to deepening our cooperation on global challenges, an increasingly 

important pillar ofthe U.S.-ROK alliance. The Republic of Korea hosted the 

November 2010 G-20 Summit, the November 2011 Fourth High-Level Forum on 

Aid Effectiveness, and the March 2012 Nuclear Security Summit. The Republic of 

Korea is currently a non-pern13nent member on the UN Security Council and our 

cooperation at the UN and in other multilateral fora has been excellent. We also 

have outstanding cooperation on countering biological threats, and just last week 

the Republic of Korea hosted our third bilateral, whole-of-government 

biopreparedness "Able Response" exercise. 

U.S. and Korean soldiers serve side by side in Afghanistan, where the Republic of 

Korea is a major donor to reconstruction and stabilization efforts. The Republic of 

Korea has been a leader in supporting international etlorts to resolve the Iranian 

nuclear issue, including by supporting Iran sanctions and significantly reducing 

imports of oil from Iran. We are working together on Syria, where the Republic of 

Korea is providing assistance to address the humanitarian needs of the Syrian 

people. In April, we held the second U.S.-ROK Africa Dialogue, to share views 

and advance our cooperation on economic development and political and security 

issues in Africa. 

A Strong Economic Partnership 

The engine of our alliance is our deep economic cooperation. The Republic of 

Korea is Asia's fourth-largest economy and our seventh-largest trading partner; our 

two cmmtries have one of the most vibrant trading relationships in the world, one 

that topped over $100 billion in 2012. The year 2013, in addition to marking the 

60th anniversary of our alliance, also marks the first anniversary of the entry into 

force ofthe U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The KORUS FT A 

is increasing trade and investment between our two countries, is providing 

- 2-
13


81697a-3.eps

significant new opportunities for U.S. exporters, businesses, workers, and farnlers, 

and reflects the depth and maturity of our strategic relationship. Our two cOlmtries 

continue to work together closely to fully implement the KORUS FTA, and we 

look forward to even more economic benefits as more provisions ofthe agreement 

are implemented. 

The landmark KORUS FTA is not simply focused on strengthening trade ties, but 

also deepens the political and strategic partnership with our key Asia-Pacific ally 

and demonstrates to Americans and Koreans alike that our relationship brings them 

real, practical benetHs. Our commitment to the KORUS FTA enhances our 

credibility as a Pacific power and tells the world that we will remain engaged in the 

Asia-Pacitic region. As President Park said before Congress last month, the 

KORUS FT A "helps underpin Washington's rebalancing toward the region." 

On the topic of economic development, there is no better example than the 

Republic of Korea, which has made extraordinary progress, from a recipient of 

foreign aid and Peace Corps volunteers in the past, to a thriving economic 

powerhouse and international aid donor today. The ROK example shows the 

benefits of investing in development aid and people-to-people ties, and we plan to 

further expand our development partnership with Korea on a global basis. 

Building on the development cooperation memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

we signed in 2011, the Peace Corps and the Korea International Cooperation 

Agency will sign an MOU to collaborate on global development and international 

voltmteer programs. This type of cooperation not only advances our shared 

interests, but will help forge closer ties between future generations of young 

Americans and Koreans. 

Strong Science and Technology Ties 

Our substantial ties also include strong cooperation in science and teclmology, on 

cyber space and cyber security, and on climate change and energy. The United 

States and Republic of Korea are also global leaders and partners on peaceful 

nuclear energy. We both recently decided to seek an extension of our existing 

civil nuclear cooperation agreement which has benefitted our two countries tor 

over four decades and are in the process of negotiating a successor agreement to 

continue and expand this longstanding and fruitful cooperation in the future. As 

President Obama said, "I believe that we can tind a way to support South Korea's 

energy and commercial needs even as we uphold our mutual commitments to 

prevent nuclear proliferation." The Administration is ready to work with Congress 

to achieve an early extension of the existing agreement, and we are grateful for 

- 3 -
14


81697a-4.eps

your efforts on the related pending draft legislation. We are confident that our two 

governments can produce a successor agreement that advances both our shared 

nonproliferation and nuclear cooperation policy objectives. 

Deep People-to-People Ties 

The foundation of our alliance and our sixty years of partnership and shared 

prosperity rests on our people-to-people ties and our shared values-a commitment 

to freedom, democracy, and the nue oflaw. Ties between Americans and Koreans 

are deeper and tighter than ever: Last year more than one million South Koreans 

visited the United States. The Republic of Korea sends more tmiversity students to 

the United States per capita than any other major economy, over 72,000 per yeara strong vote of confidence in the US. education system and the future ofUS.-

ROK ties. The United States is the clear top choice for Korean entrepreneurs and 

scientists seeking to create businesses and develop new technologies, and we 

support efforts to facilitate such exchanges. 

Our cOlmtries are working to reinvigorate exchange programs between Americans 

and Koreans. In May, we jointly mmounced our intent to renew the Work, 

English, Study, and Travel (WEST) program, which provides an opportunity for 

qualified university students from Korea to study English, participate in 

internships, and travel independently in the United States. We are also expanding 

the U.S.-Korea Fulbright Program through the creation oftwo new Fulbright 

scholarships focused on US.-ROK alliance studies. Our International Visitor 

Leadership Progrmn (IVLP), which brings promising young Korean leaders to the 

United States on professional exchanges, has had notable successes-over 100 

current and former ROK legislators and multiple cabinet ministers have been IVLP 

alunmi. 

Perhaps the most important exan1ple of our close ties is the proud legacy of 

Korean-Americans-over two million strong-who have made crucial 

contributions to America's prosperity, defended America's freedom, added their 

own unique qualities to America's culture, and distinguished themselves in 

academia, science, medicine, business, and athletics. Korean-Americm1s increase 

the strength and vitality of our strong partnership. 

DPRK 

Let me tum now to perhaps the greatest challenge our alliance faces-North 

Korea. Many of the DPRK's provocations in recent months-from its missile 

- 4-
15


81697a-5.eps

launch in December to its third nuclear test in February and subsequent bellicose 

rhetoric -have directly targeted the United States and the Republic of Korea. Let 

me be clear: the United States remains fully conunitted to the defense ofthe 

Republic of Korea, and we will continue to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our 

ally in the face of these North Korean provocations, including through extended 

deterrence and the full range of U.S. military capabilities, both conventional and 

nuclear. 

Despite the DPRK's recent overtures in the region and outreach to cOlmterparts in 

the Six-Party process, we have yet to see concrete steps suggesting that North 

Korea is prepared to negotiate on the key issue of paramount concern: the 

verifiable denuclearization ofthe Korean Peninsula. We continue to coordinate 

closely with the ROK, as well as other Six-Party partners, on North Korea policy. 

The United States remains committed to authentic and credible negotiations to 

implement the September 2005 Joint Statement ofthe Six-Party Talks and to bring 

North Korea into compliance with its international obligations through irreversible 

steps leading to denuclearization. We will not accept North Korea as a nucleararmed state, nor will we reward the DPRK for the absence of bad behavior, or 

compensate the DPRK merely tor returning to dialogue. We have also made clear 

that U.S.-DPRK relations cannot fundamentally improve without sustained 

improvement in inter-Korean relations, which we support. 

Like the Republic of Korea, the United States remains gravely concerned about the 

deplorable human rights situation in the DPRK and about the well-being ofthe 

North Korean people. With the co-sponsorship ofthe United States, Republic of 

Korea, Japan, the European Union, and others, the UN Human Rights Council in 

March established an independent one-year Commission of Inquiry to investigate 

and report to the international conununity on North Korea's widespread, systemic 

human rights violations. Ambassador Robert King and Department of State 

Bureau of Democracy, Labor, and Hmnan Rights Deputy Assistant Secretary Dan 

Baer recently organized the latest in a series of face-to-face consultations with the 

ROK and other key partners on ways to enhance pressure on Pyongyang to 

improve its human rights record. 

The Future of the lJ .S.-ROK Alliance 

Our sixty-year-strong alliance is rooted in our legacy of sacritice, our shared 

interests in the Asia-Pacific region and around the world, our deep economic ties, 

and most importantly, our shared values and strong personal friendships that have 

developed from extensive people-to-people ties. The alliance has never been 

- 5 -
16


81697a-6.eps

stronger and both our countries are actively working to prepare our alliance for the 

years to come. As President Park said to Congress in May, our efforts portray a 

"forward-leaning alliance" and "point to a 21st-century partnership that is both 

comprehensive and strategic." 

President Park's landmark visit to Washington this past May-a visit by Northeast 

Asia's first modern-day female head of state---opens a new chapter in our alliance 

and partnership. We welcome the Republic of Korea's growing leadership on the 

world stage and the United States is fully collllnitted to this alliance, which is a 

torce tor peace and security not just on the Korean Peninsula, but in the region and 

arOlmd the globe. We are heartened that support for the alliance from the 

American and Korean people is at an all-time high: recent polls show that over 80 

percent of Koreans support the alliance. Strong and enduring Congressional 

support for the Republic of Korea and for our alliance and partnership has been 

critical to the success of our relationship tor the last six decades, and will be even 

more important in the decades to come. 

Thank you for inviting me to testifY on this important topic. I am happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

- 6-
17

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Countryman, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS M. COUNTRYMAN, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND 

NONPROLIFERATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Poe, Ranking Member Faleomavaega, and members of the subcommittees, thank you 

for this opportunity to testify about the negotiations on a successor 

agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and 

the Republic of Korea. The U.S. and the ROK continue to be strong 

allies across the spectrum of political, security, and economic 

issues. I like the way Judge Poe put it. We have many allies, but 

the ROK is a special case. And I don’t believe any single issue can 

undo this alliance. 

In the nuclear realm specifically, our two countries have a long 

history of working together on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. 

And we press forward today with our shared objective of achieving 

the verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in a peaceful manner. 

Today, I want to focus on this first area: The longstanding peaceful nuclear cooperation between our two countries. The U.S. and 

the Republic of Korea are in the process of negotiating a new 

agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, generally referred to as 

a 123 agreement. The current agreement entered into force in 

March 1973 and expires in March 2014. The U.S. and the ROK 

began negotiating a successor agreement in 2010, and we have 

made substantial progress in negotiating a text that will extend 

our long and fruitful partnership into the future. 

Because of the breadth and depth of our current and future nuclear cooperation, our two countries jointly decided to seek a 2-year 

extension of the existing agreement to give us more time to complete negotiations and then fulfill our respective domestic requirements to bring the new agreement into force. The extension will facilitate the efforts of both our governments to finalize an agreement that promotes U.S. and South Korean objectives and requirements for nonproliferation and civil nuclear cooperation. An extension would ensure that there is no lapse in our ongoing civil nuclear cooperation, preserving stability and predictability in our 

joint commercial activities. 

The two sides have pledged to work together diligently and to 

conclude negotiations on a successor agreement as soon as possible. 

In this regard, I want to thank Chairman Royce, Ranking Member 

Engel, and other members of the committee who have cosponsored 

the pending draft legislation, which would authorize the President 

to extend the current term of the U.S.-Republic of Korea agreement 

until March 2016. The administration stands ready to work with 

Congress to achieve the extension of this existing agreement. And 

early passage of this legislation would provide confidence to both 

countries, including our respective nuclear industries, that our civil 

nuclear cooperation will continue smoothly. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States and the Republic of Korea are 

approaching these negotiations as close allies and partners committed to advance both countries’ global leadership in the peaceful 

18

uses of nuclear energy and preventing nuclear proliferation worldwide. I am confident our two governments can produce a successor 

agreement that serves as a strong foundation for our bilateral civil 

nuclear cooperation for the future and reaffirms our common commitment to nuclear nonproliferation. 

So thank you again for this opportunity to discuss this important 

aspect of our relationship with our ally: The Republic of Korea. I 

look forward to your questions, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Countryman follows:]

19


81697b-1.eps

Testimony of Assistant Secretary Thomas M. Countryman on 

Negotiations of the Successor Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear 

Cooperation between the Government of the lJnited States of America 

and the Government of the Republic of Korea Concerning Peaceful 

Uses of Nuclear Energy 

Joint Subcommittee Hearing: Next Steps in the lJ.S. - Republic of 

Korea Alliance 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, Subcommittee on Terrorism, 

Nonproliferation, and Trade 

June 27, 2013 

Next Steps in the U.S. - Republic of Korea Alliance 

Chainnan Chabot, Chainnan Poe, Ranking Members Faleomavaega and 

Shem1an, and Members of the Subcommittees, 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today, regarding 

the negotiations on a successor agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation 

between the United States and the Republic of Korea. As the May 2013 

meeting between President Obama and Republic of Korea President Park 

Geun-hye demonstrated, the United States and the Republic of Korea 

continue to be strong allies across the spectrum of political, security, and 

economIc Issues. 
20


81697b-2.eps

In the nuclear realm, the United States prizes its longstanding 

cooperation with the Republic of Korea in many areas. We have a history of 

working together to harvest the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and are 

pressing forward with our shared objective of achieving the verifiable 

denuclearization ofthe Korean Peninsula in a peaceful malmer. 

Request/or Authori=ation to F;xtend F;xisting Agreement 

The current agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation, or 123 

Agreement, between the United States and the Republic of Korea entered 

into force in March 1973 and expires in March 2014. The United States alld 

the Republic of Korea begall negotiating a successor agreement in 2010, and 

we have made substantial progress in creating a text that properly reflects 

both our govemments' roles as global leaders in nuclear energy and our 

mutual commitment to the highest standards of nonproliferation. Because of 

the breadth and depth of our current and future nuclear cooperation with the 

Republic of Korea, it takes some time and effort to resolve complex 

technical issues. I have no doubt that we will get there. 

To allow sufficient time to resolve these complicated issues, the 

United States and the Republic of Korea decided in April to seek a two-year 

- 2 -
21


81697b-3.eps

extension of the existing agreement. An extension would facilitate the 

efforts of both our govenmlents to finalize the text of an agreement that 

promotes United States and ROK nonproliferation and civil nuclear 

cooperation objectives and priorities, and which fulfills our respective 

domestic requirements to bring that agreement into force. An extension 

would also ensure there is no lapse in our ongoing civil nuclear cooperation, 

preserving stability and predictability in our joint commercial activities. 

It is for these reasons that the Administration is seeking Congressional 

support for an extension of the existing agreement. We are grateful for your 

consideration of this request, and 1 would like to thank Chairman Royce, 

Ranking Member Engel, and the other members ofthe Committee who have 

co-sponsored the pending dratllegislation authorizing the President to 

extend the term of the current U.S.-Republic of Korea agreement for 

peaceful nuclear cooperation for a period not to exceed March 19, 2016, 

notwithstanding any other provision oflaw. The Administration stands 

ready to work with Congress to achieve the extension of the existing 

agreement. Early passage of such legislation would provide confidence to 

both countries, including our respective nuclear industries, that cooperation 

will continue smoothly. 

- 3 -
22


81697b-4.eps

Draft Successor Agreement Text 

Let me also say a few words about our etlorts to negotiate the 

successor U. S.-Republic of Korea 123 agreement. Our two governments are 

working together to conclude an agreement that builds on our fruitful and 

longstanding partnership, reinforces our shared status as global leaders in 

nuclear energy, and reaffirms our mutual commitment to the highest 

standards of nuclear nonproliferation. We will continue to focus on working 

together to address common practical challenges facing our nuclear 

industries as outlined by President Obama and President Park this May. The 

two leaders talked about making progress on spent fuel management, 

maintaining a reliable supply of reactor fuel, and strengthening our 

respective nuclear industries. We conducted a round of negotiations in June 

and made progress in coming closer to an agreed text. The United States 

and the ROK intend to meet about every quarter to conclude negotiations on 

a successor agreement as soon as possible. 

Conclusion 

Chainnan Chabot and Chainnan Poe, Ranking Members 

Faleomavaega and Sherman, we are approaching these negotiations as two 

- 4 -
23


81697b-5.eps

close allies and partners committed to advancing our cOlmtries' global 

leadership in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and preventing nuclear 

proliferation worldwide. I am confident our two govenmlents can produce a 

successor agreement text that serves as a strong foundation for U. S.-ROK 

bilateral civil nuclear cooperation for the future and reaflin11S our COl1llil0n 

commitment to nonproliferation. 

Thank you, again, for this opportunity to discuss this important aspect 

of our relationship with the Republic of Korea. 1 look forward to your 

questions. 

- 5 -
24

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions. I would 

like to ask this to both of the gentlemen. Without commenting on 

the negotiating positions and your opinions, how much importance 

does the Government of the Republic of Korea assign to the successful renewal of the 123 agreement, the civilian nuclear cooperation agreement? Why is it important to the U.S.? What are the implications to the U.S.-Korea alliance if, for some reason, the agreement is not renewed? I will start with you, Mr. Zumwalt. 

Mr. ZUMWALT. I think the agreement is very important to the Republic of Korea, partly because of the successful relationship our 

industries have. They would like to see a continuation and an enriching of that relationship. 

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Countryman? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. The agreement is important to both governments. It serves as a commitment to each other that we are both 

determined to remain both technical and commercial leaders in the 

global nuclear power industry. It ensures that we continue to share 

the vital goal of preventing nuclear nonproliferation. And, of 

course, renewing it on time given this 2-year extension will prevent 

any interruption in our commercial cooperation, which is essential, 

both for United States provision of fuel and equipment to nuclear 

power plants in the Republic of Korea and to U.S. content in the 

power plants that the Republic of Korea is selling, for example, to 

the United Arab Emirates. And I am confident that we will not 

reach that situation of facing those consequences because of the 

joint determination of both countries to get a good agreement done 

within the time that we hope you will permit us. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Last week, North Korea’s U.N. Ambassador held a news conference during which he claimed North Korea was essentially 

blameless for tensions on the Korean Peninsula and that their recent nuclear and missile tests were purely for self-defense. He further claimed that the U.S. is entirely responsible for the ever-worsening situation on the Korean Peninsula. 

Now, the history of relations with North Korea has been they act 

up, they act outrageous, stomp around, and we criticize them. Then 

at some point, we and our allies essentially buy them off with food 

and/or fuel. Then they promise to be better, and for at least some 

short period of time, at least publicly, they are. Then they act up 

again and we start this process all over. 

How should we avoid this in the future? I will again start with 

you, Mr. Zumwalt. 

Mr. ZUMWALT. As I said in my statement, we are determined not 

to reward North Korea for provocation, for refraining from provocation, or merely for coming back and talking. So what we have 

stated is that we are open to authentic and credible negotiations, 

which focus on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but we 

are not interested in talks until we see that North Korea is serious. 

And the way we would see this is by North Korea taking some concrete steps that show us that they have really changed their position. 

So what our strategy now is to engage friends and partners in 

the region, the other Six-Party partners, particularly China, who 

25

has a unique relationship with North Korea, and encourage China 

to use its influence to try and persuade North Korea to take a different tack. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Countryman? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Nothing to add to that, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Under President Park, South Korea intends 

to reach out and develop closer ties with China. As the ranking 

member, Mr. Faleomavaega, mentioned, President Park is meeting 

with President Xi, I believe today or at least they were heading 

there today. What can we expect from this visit, would you say? 

How is this going to affect future relations, et cetera, relatively 

briefly? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. We have had extensive consultations with Korea 

about China. And, although I don’t want to speak for the Korean 

Government, obviously, we think it is very helpful that she goes to 

China and talks directly. I think she will be asking China to use 

its influence to persuade North Korea to become serious about living up to its commitment to denuclearization. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Countryman? 

[No response.] 

Mr. CHABOT. All right. I will now recognize the ranking member, 

Mr. Faleomavaega, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just a couple of questions. Secretary Zumwalt, did you say that 

the United States will not accept North Korea as a nuclear-armed 

state? The fact of the matter is North Korea already has in its possession eight to ten nuclear weapons. How do you denuclearize a 

state that already has nuclear weapons? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. I agree with what you are saying, but North 

Korea has also expressed the desire to improve the welfare of its 

people. And our strategy is to convince North Korea that it is not 

possible both to be a nuclear weapon state and to have the kind 

of economic engagement with the world that would improve the 

livelihood of the North Korea people. So we are working with 

friends and allies in the region, including China, Japan, South 

Korea, and others, to impose economic sanctions that we hope 

would persuade North Korea that it must choose a different tack, 

begin serious negotiations about denuclearization so it can achieve 

what it wishes, which is improving the livelihood of the North Korean people. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Countryman? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. I would just add not to underestimate the difficulty of the task, but the fact is that a unified world community 

sending a consistent message caused four states already, Ukraine, 

Kazakhstan, Belarus, and South Africa, to give up possession of 

nuclear weapons. It ain’t easy, but it can be done. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, we have been participating in 

the Six-Party Talks with North Korea for the last 6 or 7 years, I 

believe. I certainly have some very serious questions on the validity 

and the value of continuing these Six-Party Talks because in my 

humble opinion, they have been a failure. Secretary Zumwalt, could 

you comment on that? Should we continue having these Six-Party 

26

Talks? Because it seems like it has been just a whole bunch of 

rhetoric, ‘‘You said this,’’ ‘‘I said that,’’ and tit for tat; with no results. Can you comment on this? Should we continue having the 

Six-Party Talks? 

And why should Russia be part of this when, in fact, at least if 

I am wrong, all North Korea wanted was to negotiate with the 

United States, perhaps even with South Korea? The other countries 

don’t seem relevant, but I may be wrong. Could you enlighten us 

on this? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. I agree with you that the purpose of talks is not 

to have talks but, rather, to achieve an objective. And our objective 

is denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. And that is why our 

position now is we won’t engage in Six-Party Talks until we see 

that North Korea is serious about implementing its international 

obligations and its own statement that it would aim for 

denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. So until North Korea 

shows us that it was serious about this, we won’t be engaging in 

talks. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. The fact of the matter is—I may be wrong—

that the only American that has ever met with Kim Jong-Un was 

a gentleman by the name of Dennis Rodman. Now, that is not exactly my idea of a serious negotiation, but the problem is we—if 

you call them experts or whatever we have out there, it is anybody’s guess as to what exactly has been in the minds of the leaders of North Korea for all this time. 

And I just wanted to ask, Mr. Countryman. You said that we do 

have this 123 nuclear agreement with South Korea. Do we have 

similar agreements with other countries? For example, is it similar 

to the one we have with India? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Each 123 agreement concluded under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act has certain common elements, as 

mandated by Congress, but each has unique elements that address 

the particular level of development of that country and the level of 

cooperation that we in that country are seeking to have with each 

other. So yes, every one is similar, but every one has unique characteristics as well. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Well, I am sure that one of the concerns 

that everybody has is that whether or not some day even South 

Korea may want to have nuclear capabilities for the simple reason 

that it wants to defend itself, no more than you would Japan, 

China, or other countries that have in their possession nuclear 

weapons. 

And I am sure that this is part of the stipulations in this agreement that we are working on, but let’s say—and I am being hypothetical about this. Do you see a real sense of realism in the fact 

that maybe one day South Korea may want to exercise that option, 

that they want to also become a nuclear power, just like other 

countries? Secretary Zumwalt? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. President Park has stated very clearly her policy 

that South Korea does not seek nuclear weapons. In her address 

to the joint meeting of Congress, she said she supported President 

Obama’s mission of a nuclear-free world. And she said let it start 

on the Korean Peninsula. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. 

27

Mr. CHABOT. That is quite all right. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, is recognized. 

Mr. POE. Thank you both for being here. Thank you for your candor, although it seems to me it is a little tactful candor. Let me just 

ask you bluntly, Mr. Zumwalt, does North Korea have nuclear 

weapons in your opinion? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. North Korea has engaged in three nuclear tests. 

And we are very concerned about their nuclear weapons. 

Mr. POE. So that would be? Is that a yes? Pick a horse and ride 

it. Is it yes or no? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. They have them, yes. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Countryman? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Yes. 

Mr. POE. All right. Thank you. 

If the United States proceeds after the 123 agreement on a longterm agreement with the problem being the advance consent to enrichment and reprocessing, do you think in your opinion we should 

make that additional step and grant that to South Korea? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Well, in the 123 agreement, that is, of course, 

one of several key questions that we are deciding and that we are 

negotiating. So it wouldn’t go into deep detail about how we would 

resolve these issues between our two sides. 

Mr. POE. Do you have an opinion? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. POE. Can I hear what it is? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. My opinion is that it is premature to decide 

every potential question. Rather, what we need to find is a process 

by which the U.S. and the ROK can together as partners make 

smart decisions about technologies on the basis of economics, technical feasibility, and nonproliferation concerns. 

Mr. POE. All right. Based on your expertise, both of you, we move 

forward with that step. North Korea, Junior up there, what is he 

going to do? What is he going to say? What is he going to do? What 

is his reaction? I am talking about the President Kim. Excuse me. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. I think the ranking member also has already 

pointed out that predictability is not the strongest suit of the 

DPRK. So I am reluctant to make a prediction, but it is an issue 

that we are constantly discussing with our key allies in the region, 

the ROK, and Japan, as well as with the Chinese. And I think that 

we—I will let Mr. Zumwalt comment further, but I think we do try 

to take into account to the extent possible the predicted result, the 

predicted reaction from Pyongyang. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Zumwalt? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Yes. Earlier, when I had said we were looking to 

North Korea to take concrete steps to show it is serious about 

denuclearization, one type of step it could take is inviting back 

IAEA inspect its nuclear program. And that would provide a lot of 

reassurance in the region. So certainly the kinds of things we are 

talking about with South Korea I think are the types of things we 

would like to talk about with North Korea as well in terms of oversight of a nuclear program. 

Mr. POE. Different issue: Japan. What is Japan’s position on our 

123 agreement and with Korea and then if we move forward with 

28

advance consent to enrichment and reprocessing? Since you worked 

in both places and you speak all of the languages, what is your answer? What do you think, Mr. Zumwalt? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. You know, Japan right now is undergoing its own 

rigorous debate about the future of its civilian nuclear power industry. And, as you know, there is a lot of opposition in Japan to continue its civilian nuclear program. At the same time, they have a 

lot of technologies and are interested in exporting nuclear power as 

well. So what I would answer is that the debate is ongoing in 

Japan. And it is not clear how they are going to come out. 

Mr. POE. Maybe my question wasn’t clear. I am not really talking 

about Japan. I am talking about Japan’s position on us dealing 

with South Korea. 

Mr. ZUMWALT. I don’t want to speak for the Japanese Government, but I have not heard in many years living there concerns 

about the South Korean civilian nuclear program. 

Mr. POE. Mr. Countryman?? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. I would say the same, that the Japanese have 

not expressed, to my knowledge, a view to the U.S. Government 

about our negotiation with a separate partner. I am not sure it 

would be appropriate for them to do so. We deal with each friend 

on our own terms, on the terms of that relationship. 

Mr. POE. And then back to the question. We are all here in the 

next 15 seconds. How would the U.S. economy be affected if the 

123 agreement is not approved? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Thank you. As I mentioned, there are exports 

from the United States. I am just trying to find the right numbers 

here. In the last 10 years, from 2001 to 2010, nuclear industry exports from the U.S. to the ROK totaled $181 million in those 10 

years. Another example of the kind of cooperation is the contract 

between the ROK and the United Arab Emirates for nuclear reactors. Westinghouse and other U.S. companies will carry out about 

10 percent of the work associated with this project, amounting to 

about $2 billion in equipment and services and about 5,000 American jobs across 17 states. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms. Gabbard, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, ranking 

member. Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. I actually had a 

follow-up regarding the benefits here, specifically with U.S. jobs. I 

know the time had expired, am wondering if you had anything to 

add specifically on that considering a lot of the discussion has 

taken place on the benefit to our relationship with South Korea 

and the challenges that we are facing there in the region. I wanted 

to see if you could add anything else just to what this extension 

of the current 123 agreement does to both benefit the U.S.-Korea 

alliance but also benefit us here in the United States from an economic perspective. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Thank you. I don’t think I will add additional 

numbers. These are estimates generated by the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry association whom we respect. I think what I 

would emphasize that is always a concern for us is the predictVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:28 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\_AP\062713\81697 HFA PsN: SHIRL
29

ability of commercial contracts that maintaining the kind of cooperation that we have, the kind of exports that we hope to grow 

in the nuclear field requires countries such as the ROK and the 

United States to be able to rely on each other and to have that predictable business environment. So that is the point that goes beyond the numbers. 

The other point is that the United States and the ROK I think 

have been the most dynamic and innovative of all states in developing their nuclear power industries, respectfully. If we both want 

to stay on top of this; that is, we both want to continue to have 

a reputation in the United States for producing the world’s safest 

reactors for export, I think that we need to have that kind of predictability, which I am confident we will achieve by conclusion of 

a new agreement. We need this 2-year extension in the meantime. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. As we talk about how we deal here in 

the United States but also within the region with the 

nuclearization of North Korea, you know, we discuss President 

Obama’s meeting with President Xi, President Park meeting with 

him now as well, what do you expect the outcomes of these discussions to be in the context of doing something differently than we 

have been to come out with a different outcome and to get us out 

of the vicious cycle that we have been in for so long with North 

Korea. And, really, what are the objectives now for the State Department to move toward the clear goal of denuclearization? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. We have been encouraged by recent discussions 

with the Chinese, including the Chinese President, that China 

shares the same goal that we do of seeing a denuclearized Korean 

Peninsula because I think China has made it very clear recent actions by North Korea have not been in China’s own interest. And 

so we want to work closely with China to implement U.N. sanctions 

in a way that will be more persuasive to change North Korea’s 

mind that it really has to take a different approach toward this. 

So right now, our efforts are not on talks with North Korea but 

more on creating the right environment so that in the future, we 

might be able to have such talks leading to denuclearization. 

Ms. GABBARD. Do you think China’s buy-in to this collective 

strategy is essential to meeting that objective? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. China plays an essential role, but they border 

North Korea and have the most vibrant economic relationship. So 

their role is essential, yes. 

Ms. GABBARD. And the last question. You know, South Korea in 

the last few years has been developing its own Korean air and missile defense. Understandably with the threat that comes from the 

north, what kinds of coordination and—or has there been engagement there so that there is a coordinated effort with South Korea 

and other East Asia allies to make sure that the coverage is not 

duplicative and the efforts are done so in a way that benefits our 

shared interests? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Yes. We have had a long series of discussions with 

our ally, the Republic of Korea, about what needs the alliance 

faces. And given a heightened threat from North Korea of North 

Korea’s own missiles, we jointly agree that there is a need for some 

additional capabilities. And that is one reason we came to an 

30

agreement with Republic of Korea about its revised missile guidelines so that we can address some of these concerns. 

Ms. GABBARD. And with our allies within the region as well as 

others, has their missile defense development been received well? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Yes. In fact, I think everyone is concerned about 

the threat of North Korean missiles and wants to strengthen missile defense. 

Ms. GABBARD. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, good afternoon. 

I appreciate you being here. Korea to me is an amazing story 

about where it came from 60 years ago to where we are now. And 

I think we have all seen that satellite picture at night of the Southern peninsula and the Northern peninsula. The remarkable difference between what happens in a free society, we would surely 

want that to continue. 

Coming from Florida—and my background is in agriculture—we 

are real happy about the free trade agreement. And I hear from my 

cattlemen in our district how impressed they are with the way the 

Koreans love our Florida beef, and we want to keep that going. In 

fact, they said they like that. They prefer it over the Australian 

beef. And so we are proud to report that back. 

How do you envision a South Korea-China relationship under 

President Park, number one? And how will this affect a relationship with South Korea? And how will it affect both of their relationships with North Korea? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. Well, thank you very much for your endorsement 

of U.S.-Korea free trade policy. We do have a lot of good news, particularly in the area of agriculture. Koreans very much appreciate 

high-quality, safe, inexpensive U.S. products. And I think we will 

have bright prospects for the future as well. 

Dr. YOHO. Did I mention our grapefruits from Florida, too? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. I was about to say citrus exports have been 

among the brightest of our exports. So yes, that is very good. 

Dr. YOHO. That is good. 

Mr. ZUMWALT. But, getting to the Korea-China relationship, you 

know, obviously China to Korea is a very important country. It is 

their largest trading partner. It is a very large economy right on 

their doorstep. But also, in dealing with North Korea, the South 

Korean Government recognizes that China plays a critical role. 

We have had extensive discussions with South Korea about relations with China. And we are very comfortable with President 

Park’s visit. We think it will be helpful in terms of convincing 

China to play a more active role dealing with North Korea. So we 

are expecting to hear some good results of her visit there and want 

to continue working closely with Korea as we both engage China. 

Dr. YOHO. Thank you. 

Mr. Countryman?? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Nothing to add, sir 

Dr. YOHO. Nothing? You know what? I have got to give you guys 

credit. I have been through a lot of these. You guys have short, sucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:28 Jul 25, 2013 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\_AP\062713\81697 HFA PsN: SHIRL
31

cinct answers. And I know we all appreciate that. I hope my questions are short and succinct. 

Let’s see. What can the administration do to strengthen U.S. relationships in the Republic of South Korea? I mean, what else can 

we do? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. You know, obviously, although we have an agreement on Korea, U.S. free trade agreement, we do have implementation going forward and want to continue engaging with each other 

to make sure implementation goes smoothly. Our agreement is that 

by 2016, 95 percent of U.S. manufactured exports would enter 

Korea duty-free. And so we anticipate increased exports but obviously want to keep working to make sure that the promise of that 

agreement is implemented. 

On people-to-people ties, we have some very good prospects to 

continue encouraging Koreans to visit the United States, come to 

U.S. colleges. I know immigration issues are being debated now, 

and that is——

Dr. YOHO. The visa agreement increase, that would help? That 

would——

Mr. ZUMWALT. That is a very important discussion and is something that could continue strengthening ties. And, then, finally, 

continuing to strengthen our security alliance is very important. 

Several members have commented on how North Korean threats 

create a perception in South Korea of a challenge. And so one thing 

we need to do is to continue reassuring our allies that we will be 

there for them, we will be providing our extended deterrence guarantee, the nuclear umbrella so that Korea is not tempted to implement its own nuclear policy, they can count on us. And we need 

to keep providing that reassurance. 

Dr. YOHO. Okay. Thank you. 

Same? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Well, from where I sit, I would only emphasize the security relationship. Our security commitment to each 

other is absolutely unbreakable, but it is not self-implementing. 

That is, we have to work together on a daily basis, make sure we 

understand each other, make sure we have divided our roles and 

responsibilities accurately. And I think that we do that on a daily 

basis. 

The military-to-military relationship and the understandings we 

have with each other on the political level, that kind of security understanding is the backbone of this relationship. 

Dr. YOHO. Okay, Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. 

The ranking member, Mr. Sherman, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. 

Ambassador Zumwalt, I will spare you a question. I will just give 

you the comment. We have seen an increase in imports from South 

Korea that is larger than the increase in exports. In fact, we have 

seen a decline in exports after the effectiveness, after the U.S.-

Korea free trade agreement went into effect. 

Others from the administration in this room have said, ‘‘Well, 

there is not necessarily a relationship between trade deficits and 

the loss of jobs.’’ And, rather than let you repeat that canard, I will 

32

simply go on to Assistant Secretary Countryman. But there is not 

a foreign service in the world that is not ten times more dedicated 

to exports than our State Department. And there is not a foreign 

service in the world that doubts that trade deficit leads to job 

losses in their own country. The State Department is alone in its 

approach to trade. 

Assistant Secretary Countryman, if I may quote your testimony, 

you say it takes some time to resolve the technical issues in the 

123 agreement. The problem or the sticking point is whether there 

will be advance consent rights regarding the enrichment and reprocessing of U.S. fuel or, that is to say, U.S.-origin fuel and fuel 

that has gone through American reactors. Is that accurate? Can 

you comment on how the United States intends to address the enrichment and reprocessing in 123 agreements with not only Korea 

but Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and others? 

I realize that you don’t want to negotiate in public, but you are 

part of a democracy. And Americans would like to know what your 

position is going to be. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Well, you are right on several points. I 

wouldn’t like to negotiate the entire agreement here in public. You 

are also correct that advance consent on use of U.S.-supplied materials and technology for enrichment and reprocessing is an important issue in this agreement. I remain convinced that this issue, 

like everything else that we are discussing within the agreement, 

is susceptible to the kind of solution that careful, patient, economic, 

technical analysis will allow us to achieve. And that is exactly the 

purpose of the joint fuel cycle study that we initiated 2 years ago 

that will run for 10 years and that will serve as the basis for important joint decisions that we will make about future fuel cycle in 

Korea. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So that study will be done when? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. 2021. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you are seeking an extension for just 2 years. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Yes. 

Mr. SHERMAN. So you will be able to solve the problem when you 

get the study results in 2021, but you are asking for a 2-year extension? Enlighten me on the math of that. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Certainly. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Are you going to be back here every 2 years for 

another 2-year extension? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. God forbid. We are——

Mr. SHERMAN. How long have you been working on this? You 

have run out of time. You need another 2 years. How is it going? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. We have been negotiating for 3 years. And I 

think it is going well, but I will be more——

Mr. SHERMAN. You have been negotiating for 3 years, and you 

need another 2 years. There are very few times where an argument 

lasts 5 years and it is described as ‘‘going well.’’ But I hope you can 

get it done in 2 years. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. I will not characterize it as an argument, sir. 

It is complex, without question. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Difference in approach. Okay. I yield back. Thank 

you. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. 

33

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Castro, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, gentlemen, 

for your testimony this afternoon. I want to follow up on a little 

bit of your earlier answers to my colleagues’ question over here. 

Let me ask you, have recent provocations by North Korea affected our relationship with South Korea? And if so, how? 

Mr. ZUMWALT. I think, if anything, it has only strengthened both 

sides’ recognition that we need to work together very closely, both 

in order to deter provocations but also to forge the right kind of 

diplomatic strategy that may begin to have an impact on North 

Korea. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sir? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Nothing to add. 

Mr. CASTRO. And with respect to the 123 agreements, can you 

describe how they advance the administration’s goal of nonproliferation, essentially how these agreements make the United 

States safer? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. It is the longstanding policy of the United 

States, successive United States, administration, I think, given 

extra emphasis by President Obama and consistently supported by 

a strong majority in Congress to combat the proliferation of nuclear 

weapons around the world and specifically to discourage the spread 

of enrichment and reprocessing technology that are the technical 

basis for development of nuclear weapons. That remains our policy 

today. 

In order to achieve that policy, we employ, in cooperation with 

partners around the world, a wide variety of tools. We rely, for example, upon the nuclear suppliers’ group, that voluntary grouping 

of nuclear-capable nations that have reached agreement on what 

they will and won’t export to different partners around the world. 

We rely also upon the free market around the world in order to 

provide a reliable supply of fuel for nuclear power plans. And we 

seek to supplement that with fuel banks located in the United 

States and in Russia to guarantee against any deficiencies in the 

market so that there is no reasonable economic incentive for a 

country to develop a new enrichment capability. And one of the 

tools we use as well is, of course, the nuclear cooperation agreements, 123 agreements, by which the United States not only establishes its presence in the international markets but also is able to 

exert a benign influence upon states in order to further discourage 

the spread of such enrichment and reprocessing technology. And, 

taken together, we think that these have been successful in discouraging the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technology. 

Mr. CASTRO. And there are 25 or so agreements across the world? 

Is that right? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. I think that is about right. I will count them 

up again for you. 

Mr. CASTRO. Sure. Oh, that is fine. That is fine. I think that is 

what it is. 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. 24. 

Mr. CASTRO. 24. And what has been the effect on American industry——

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Yes. 

34

Mr. CASTRO [continuing]. Because of these agreements? 

Mr. COUNTRYMAN. Well, when we are successful, as we generally 

have been, in concluding nuclear cooperation agreements, 123 

agreements, it gives a very competitive American industry the ticket to go in and to persuade other countries, whether their utilities 

are private or public, of the important safety and economic benefits 

of U.S.-supplied equipment. So it has enabled us to compete successfully around the world in a variety of countries. 

That said, the world is more and more competitive in this field. 

The United States has to do more in order to maintain its competitiveness with other countries. And we are committed to doing that. 

Mr. CASTRO. Thank you. I yield back my time, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman yields back. We have no additional 

questioners. The chair and I have to go back to Judiciary for the 

markup, so we won’t go into a second round this afternoon. 

We thank the gentlemen for their testimony. Members, without 

objection, will have 5 days to supplement their statements or ask 

questions. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I also would like to commend our two witnesses for their participation in this afternoon’s 

hearing. I deeply appreciate their understanding of the issues that 

we have dealt with this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. If there is no further business to come before the subcommittees, we are adjourned. Thank 

you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

(35)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

36

f


81697n.eps

JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific 

Steve Chabot (R-OH), Chairman 

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade 

Ted Poe (R-TX), Chairman 

June 25, 2013 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs, to be held jointly by the Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and the Subcommittee on 

Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building 

(and available live on the Committee website at ,HVW Coreignaffai l·s.house.gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Thursday, June 27, 2013 

2:00 p.m. 

Next Steps in the U.S - Republic of Korea Alliance 

Mr. James P. Zumwalt 

Acting Assistant Secretary 

Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs 

U.S Department of State 

The Honorable Thomas M. Countryman 

Assistant Secretary 

International Security and Nonproliferation 

U.S Department of State 

By Direction of the Chairman 

IthCI1CI'C! practJCuiJIe QueST!o/J\ 

al'mlahlhty ojComrmttl'1' I1JMen<l/~ In <lltematlw' jorJ1wtr mid mSlstlw' /Jstl'mng d('\7C'1',) mar h(' dlYl"cred to the COfmmttl'e. 
37

Æ


81697m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF SUBCOMMITTEE ON __ -,Acc'''cc'''-=&,-,t:c:he,--P=-:accc,,,,!fi~c/,,-Te,,-''r-=''ccri!icc'II,-=' N-""",'lj",""-o!",ificc",,,"'cc;o,,-",,,&-=1:.c:,,-=,dc..' __ IIEARING 

Day_~1:~'h,-,u,..r",,,dc«a'.1'V __ Date __ ---,6.",12,,,7.,,-,/2,,,O,,,1,,,3,-__ Room, ___ ~2",-1,-"72,,---__ 

Starting Time 2·02 mn Ending Time 3:56 pm 

Recesses ~I <-to __ ) L-to __ ) L-to __ ) L-to~ L-to ~ L-to __ ) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Clw;nml1l Steve CIUI/wl (Il-OJJ), CluliJ'llll1l1 Ted Poe (R-TX), Ralllfillg Member Elli Faleomavae!{u (D-AS) Ranking Member lJmd 

Sherman (D-CA) 

Checlr 1111 ~flile.followillg Iilal apply: 

Opcn Session 0 Executive (closed) Session D Televised [ZJ 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Next Steps in lite U.S.-Republic of Korea Alliance 

SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Electronically Recorde.<fjtaped) [ZJ 

Stenographic Record [l] 

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Rep. Paul Cook (R-CA), Rep. Adam Kinzillger (R-IL), Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL), Rep. 

George Holding (R-NC), Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Rep. Ami Bera (D-CA) 

NON-SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT; (Mark wHh an * if they are not members of fidl committee.) 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as mecting notice attachcd? Yes 0 ~o D 

(if "no ", please Nsf below and include title, agency, department, or orgamzation.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submitted/or the record.) 

TIME SCHEDULED TO RECONVENE ___ _ 

or 

TIME AD.JOURNED __ 3_: 5_6-"p_ln __