Advancing Peace in DRC and Rwanda through President Trump’s Washington Accords – Part II

The hearing will come to order, and I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses for being here today to share very valuable insights on next steps, what we can do to support the peace process between the DRC and Rwanda. My own engagement, like that of my good friend and former colleague Tony Hall, goes back many, many decades. Tony, as we all know, was a member of Congress. He chaired the Select Committee on Hunger and also was our ambassador in Rome for food and did an amazing job there. I remember visiting him there a couple times when he was ambassador, and nobody was more robust and more aggressive in trying to ensure that people who were hungry got food to eat that was sufficient and strengthening to them. So Tony, thank you for your work too. It's been decades of it, many decades, and we have traveled together many times to Africa. So it's great to see you again. And I thank both of our witnesses, all three. We are focusing on the obviously the peace agreement, the accords, Washington Accords that were entered into in early December. And I was privileged to be with our Chairman Mast in attendance as part of the audience to see that historic signing with great hope and expectations and knowing that there might be a number of roadblocks ahead, and there have been, as we know so well. But it's a start, and it's a very significant start. Bringing both parties to negotiate at the same table was historic in and of itself. First time in modern history where such progress has been made on this conflict. Many deals were agreed to. Economic and security benefits that they will unleash for the DRC, for Rwanda, and the U.S. are very significant and will hopefully improve the quality of life for many who have suffered the terrible, terrible consequences of war over these many years. Ensuring that all sides follow through on their commitments made at the signing in December is not only in the U.S. national interest, and it is, but most importantly, it's for the millions of people who suffer from that war. This is for future generations of Congolese and Rwandan children as well as those living today and for the memory of the some 6,000,000 dead from this decades-long conflict, a human toll that is both staggering and intolerable. The urgency of this mission was brought home to us with the devastating clarity just a few days ago with another cowardly attack as a grim reminder that the peace has its enemies. This violence targeting a city that had long yearned for stability was a calculated attempt by the spoilers to shatter the hope generated by these accords. It underscores exactly why this hearing and other hearings on the Senate side and other expressions of solidarity with the peace process, why this is so important and that we stand behind those who do want peace and security in those two countries. Regrettably, past hearings have revealed that the international and U.S. response has often not borne results, especially in the face of such violence. Today, I do believe that is changing. Our hope is that the President's initiative will bear fruit so that everyone could live with peace and tranquility. I have called this hearing today because there continues to be very serious spoilers to the peace process, belligerents who act to undermine and embarrass all parties, including the United States. The Kisangani attack is a symptom of this lingering rot. Our goal today is to ensure that all parties and all people understand that the benefits of the Washington Accords and that the governments of Rwanda and DRC are clear on the steps that truly must be taken now in order to get there. The incentives are spelled out clearly in the Regional Economic Integration Framework, mandating that the DRC and Rwanda develop a structured roadmap for economic integration, covering mineral supply chains, infrastructure, energy, and tourism. Critically, the Washington Accords include a four-phase concept of operations that both parties have agreed to. This is essential for Rwanda agreeing to pull its troops back, but only if the DRC follows a synchronized schedule to eliminate the FDLR militia. While the FDLR's genocidal ideology continues to be Rwanda's primary national security concern, we also expect and demand that M23 and Rwanda take the measures to demobilize the combatants under their control. Durable peace cannot be built by governments alone. It requires the moral authority and ground-level engagement of civil society, particularly faith-based groups that I described in a resolution that I've introduced, H.Res. 586. Their networks provide the truth-telling, I should say. We need to ensure that the benefits of peace reach the poorest rather than just enriching the powerful. As such, we must recognize the indispensable role of the National Episcopal Conference of Congo, or CENCO, and the Church of Christ in Congo, ECC, together with the African Union. Time and again, when political solutions faltered, CENCO and ECC stepped in. We remember their pivotal leadership in brokering the Saint Sylvester Agreement on New Year's Eve in 2016, which prevented the total collapse of the state, and the 2025 Social Pact for Peace and Living Together to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis and violence in the region. Today, as we implement and seek the implementation of the Washington Accords, groups like CENCO and ECC are not just observers. They are key to facilitating an inclusive national dialogue in the DRC that includes all the actors of civil society, religious confessions, political parties, and armed groups to promote social cohesion, national unity, and the principle of good governance. This morning, I met for about an hour and a half with the two leaders, Monsignor Shole and Pastor Nshanyi, and they were very optimistic but very realistic about the obstacles that they are facing, and they want to play a very real role in doing this. They also spoke a great deal about the President of Angola, President Lourenço, who is convening a dialogue which hopefully will bear significant fruit, hopefully will be up and underway in this month. It is critical that voices are heard and respected and that the personal security of civil society actors are absolutely protected. As we implement these agreements, the U.S. is also breaking its dependence on minerals that finance the Chinese Communist Party, often extracted through forced child labor and adult forced labor, stopping indirectly supporting the CCP's efforts to fuel instability and regional conflict in Africa. President Trump's executive order, immediate measures to increase American mineral production, was a crucial step towards strengthening our domestic supply chains as in the Washington Accords. In 2023 and again in 2025, I held a series of hearings highlighting the greatest beneficiaries of the conflict and critical minerals system, China's state-owned mining companies. We can't remain silent. We've got to confront this, and I have introduced legislation, H.R. 2310, the Cobalt Supply Chain Act, which ensures that goods made using or containing cobalt refined in the PRC do not enter the United States market under the presumption that the cobalt is extracted or processed with the use of child and forced labor in the DRC. We had four hearings on it. We heard from people who said this is what it's doing to the kids, anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 children who are working in these artisanal mines and also are getting sick. Sometimes the mines collapse, sometimes they die. And of course, the adults, upwards of 200,000, are being coerced in these mines by the Chinese Communist Party to produce, to produce. And where does it all go? It goes to Xinjiang, a place where genocide is taking place under Xi Jinping. So that has to end, and it has to end now. Hopefully, this agreement will preclude the need for such a bill, but if not, we've got to pass that legislation and end our complicity when you buy an EV that has been made with child labor in the DR Congo. I'd like to yield to Ms. Jacobs for any opening comments.

Well, thank you, Chairman Smith, for holding this hearing so we can hear from a panel of non-government witnesses after hearing from the State Department last month. And thank you to all of our witnesses for testifying before our committee today. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis with 7.3 million internally displaced persons and over 7,000 people killed in 2025 alone. More than 26 million people are experiencing life-threatening levels of acute food insecurity. It's one of the most complex and long-standing humanitarian crises in the world. While the latest escalation between DRC and Rwanda started in 2022, various forms of conflict in eastern DRC have been ongoing for the last three decades. And civilians have suffered the most under the current conflict, either being caught in the crossfire or being targeted by armed groups. Conflict-related sexual violence has reached epidemic levels in eastern DRC. Cases have continued to escalate this year while impunity for its perpetrators, including the M23 and other armed groups and military forces, prevails. So I do appreciate President Trump's high-level attention to this conflict that is too often ignored and put on the back burner. And I hope that that attention is sustained and not fleeting. But frankly, I have been offended by the President's statements that he has already ended the war between the DRC and Rwanda. We can all see that there is, in fact, no peace or stability on the ground at all. I've also been extremely concerned that the lack of consultation and inclusion of civil society and local communities is setting up the peace process to fail before it even gets off the ground. Only five days after the signing of the Washington Accords between President Tshisekedi and President Kagame hosted by President Trump, the M23 co-located with the Rwandan military along the front lines, took over the strategic city of Uvira in South Kivu. And while M23 has partially retreated from Uvira, we still have not seen the full retreat to 75 kilometers outside of Uvira back to Kamanyola as the United States called for in December. This is all on top of nearly a year of M23's occupation of Goma and Bukavu, two other extremely important cities in the Kivus where civilians have faced atrocities, executions, and other abuses. And let me be clear: both parties have made commitments that they have failed to maintain. Rwanda clearly continues to support the M23 and deploy its own forces, the latest numbers ranging from 5,000 to 7,000 troops in eastern Congo, not including the latest Uvira offensive in violation of the DRC's sovereignty. And the DRC military, for its part, has reportedly continued collaboration with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, a militia founded by the leaders of the 1994 Rwandan genocide in contravention of the accords. And despite Secretary Rubio and Ambassador Waltz's promises two months ago that they would use all the tools at our disposal to hold Rwanda accountable and, quote, "ensure promises made by Rwanda to the President are kept," the administration has still not announced any new sanctions or accountability measures against Rwanda or the M23. Just as I did last month during our hearing with the State Department, I urge the Trump administration to immediately make good on its promises to hold Rwanda and other spoilers to peace accountable. I also urge the administration to course-correct its exclusion of civil society from the peace process. Several studies have shown over the years that peace deals are more durable and lasting when civil society is involved, including a study that showed involving civil society reduces the risk of peace breaking down by 64 percent. So we need the buy-in of local populations to ensure peace actually sticks. We also need to consult local populations on the various commercial deals in progress with the government of DRC to ensure that investments actually benefit the Congolese people, not just foreign companies and elites. And I continue to be alarmed by the devastating impacts of foreign assistance cuts in the DRC, and I urge the Trump administration to reverse these cuts and invest in new programs immediately. Earlier this year, Secretary Rubio and DOGE cut hundreds of millions of dollars in assistance to the DRC as part of President Trump's sham foreign assistance review and illegal dismantling of USAID. Since the cuts to USAID, more than 8,200 people living in the DRC with HIV have lost access to life-saving treatment. Last year, there was a 62 percent increase in deaths due to cholera. And while there has been a surge in conflict-related sexual violence in eastern Congo, foreign assistance cuts have reduced the services available to survivors, including post-rape kits. And just in November, the World Food Programme was forced to cut the number of people it assisted in DRC in half, from 1.2 million to 600,000 people. These cuts didn't make sense then, and they certainly don't make sense now while the President talks about the need for peace and saving lives in DRC. This isn't charity. The humanitarian crisis, weak governance, and exploitation taking place will continue to further exacerbate grievances and conflict if not addressed. I would like the President's peace agenda to be successful, but it's hard to believe it will be after he gutted our foreign policy tools and neglected to dedicate the necessary senior staff and resources to make peace not just possible but enduring. Meanwhile, the Congolese have not seen peace, only escalation over the past year, and they don't have time to wait. We need immediate action to hold the M23 and Rwanda accountable for their occupation in DRC and latest offensive in Uvira. We need immediate action to get the peace process back on track so that both the DRC and Rwanda uphold the commitments they have made, and we need the administration to invest in its own institutions and tools so that this process is successful. The Congolese people have endured violence, exploitation, and promises of peace for long enough. I strongly urge the United States along with the rest of the international community to re-commit to this peace process and demonstrate seriousness about holding spoilers to peace accountable. So I look forward to hearing from our expert witness panel to hear their perspectives and recommendations for Congress and the Trump administration to realize lasting peace in the DRC. Thank you, Chairman Smith. I yield back.

Thank you very much. Without objection, if any of our other panelists would like to submit a statement for the record, it would be so ordered. And then I would like to introduce our again our distinguished witnesses. Beginning first with Ethan Tan, who is a policy analyst for American security at the America First Policy Institute. He has written extensively on these issues, brings to bear a keen understanding of what is going on in Africa and especially now in the DR Congo. And I thank him very much for taking the time to be here. Your full CV will be made a part of the record. I also want to introduce Tony Hall, former congressman from Ohio, 24 years as a member of the House and then 10 years before that as a member of the legislature. He is known and respected deeply for his work that he led so ably on here in the Congress and the House and Senate on hunger. He became our ambassador on hunger at the and served out of Rome for three years. Having I visited him there, and I was just amazed at how not amazed, not surprised, how well-respected he was by his peers because he brings a sense of urgency, comprehensive application of humanitarian law to everything he does. We have traveled many times together along with Frank Wolf, and I just want to thank Tony again for doing this. He was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I think he should have gotten it. I mean, he is all about feeding the hungry and taking the words given to us by our Lord: "When I was hungry, did you feed me?" And he's done that his entire career and his entire life. Then we will hear from Christian-Géraud Neema, a nonresident scholar of the Africa program for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And again, your full resume will be made a part of the record, but I want to thank you for coming. And Mr. Tan, the floor is yours.

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Jacobs, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the United States' efforts to further peace between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda, the underlying factors behind the conflict, and the responses of the United States and the international community. My name is Ethan Tan, and I serve as a policy analyst on the American Security team at the America First Policy Institute. Since the 1990s, armed conflict has burdened the eastern regions of the DRC, and repeated efforts to resolve the conflict have failed, stalling economic growth and allowing hostile actors to exploit the region's vast natural resources, all while blocking the United States from entering critical mineral supply chains. The United States recognizes the implications of these long-standing conflicts and as a result has led the movement towards a more holistic approach. The United States has long played a role in supporting peace efforts across Africa through its diplomatic efforts, and the Washington Accords are no different. The framework mediates beyond the scope of past deals, working in tandem with the Doha Framework signed last November and involves regional oversight from the African Union. Integrating each element into the accords begins a new chapter for the conflict, one with genuine hope for a peaceful resolution for the first time in decades. Peace is fragile, and fighting persists in the east, most notably in South Kivu and the city of Uvira. Coordination with civil societies in the DRC and Rwanda as well as partners in the African Union is paramount to the accords' future successes. Nonetheless, in the two months since the signing of the accords, there have already been multiple wins, including regular meetings between officials from the DRC and Rwanda, implementation of African Union oversight teams along the eastern border, the creation of a framework for future joint infrastructure products, and an acknowledgment from the Rwandan government that they have been engaged in security coordination with M23. U.S. diplomatic efforts have worked. U.S. officials have been credited with successfully pressuring Rwanda and M23 to withdraw from their positions in Uvira, reinforcing their commitment to helping the DRC retain its territorial integrity. Subsequent aggressions will not be tolerated, and the State Department has been vocal about pursuing sanctions should they continue. These developments reduce risks to U.S. interests in critical minerals from Africa, encapsulating a key tenet of an America First foreign policy: delivering tangible benefits to the American people. Stabilizing this region, a region that today contains over 70 percent of global cobalt as well as proven reserves of coltan, copper, gold, lithium, and diamonds, secures American defense and manufacturing supply chains and reduces import reliance from countries such as China. Investments from the United States into the DRC and Rwanda are not a side effect but a welcome and even central aspect of enduring peace. Officials from both countries have approached the U.S., citing the U.S.'s ability to integrate them within a larger regional framework and connect them to open markets in the West. And the deepening of the cooperation between the United States and both countries on this issue means that our adversaries have a diminished presence. Agreements also lay the groundwork for future U.S. investment in infrastructure projects such as the Sekina-Lobito Corridor and the Banana Deepwater Port. These projects also seek to incorporate involvement from neighboring countries, namely Burundi and Uganda. The inclusion of the rest of the Great Lakes region will greater enable accountability and create continuity across the region's economic landscape. Furthermore, the long-term stability in the region allows for diverting taxpayer dollars away from never-ending peacekeeping missions and back towards the American people. I want to thank each of you for your attention to this important issue and for the subcommittee's efforts to supporting prosperity in Africa. While the signing of the Washington Accords is a monumental moment in the conflict's history, it is more than a formal declaration. It is an urgent appeal for action. Thank you for allowing me to share my perspectives today. I look forward to your questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Tan. I'd like to now recognize Ambassador Tony Hall. I left this out, but I should have brought this out: he was one of the leaders too on trying to stop the importation of conflict diamonds, blood diamonds, and I want to thank him for that. And I yield such time as he may consume.

Thank you, Chairman Smith. Can you hear me now? Okay. It's nice to be back in the Congress again. It's been a while. And I remember in 1983, and as I look around the room, a lot of you weren't even born then. And in 1983, I had a good friend that used to come into my office and he would pray with me, and I was kind of a new believer, and he would say, "Tony, don't you think it's time to bring your faith into politics?" And I said, "No, I don't want to do that." I said, "Because I don't like politicians that wear it on their sleeve and then the next day they do something that's completely the opposite of it. I'd rather see a sermon than hear one." But I said, "I know what you mean. I know what you mean, but I don't know how to do that. How do I bring my faith into my politics and do it in a way in which I'm comfortable?" And I had just become the chairman of the committee, the subcommittee on international hunger, and I was I went the first place I went to was Ethiopia. And Ethiopia was experiencing an amazing famine in those days, civil war famine, and it was a tremendous problem. A million people had died even before I got there. I was the first, I think, elected official to go to Ethiopia in those days. And I saw 25 children die one morning from hunger. I was traveling with Mother Teresa's group, and we were traveling upcountry, and 10,000 people were running for their lives in this particular area. And they were so tired from running because of the civil war that they all lay down and some had been running for days, weeks. And they were all dehydrated, sick, hungry. And the women were handing me their dead children. They thought maybe I was a doctor or something, and they wanted me to try to bring their dead children back to life. I thought, "What in the heck is going on here?" I never got over that. And so for three or four days, this is what I saw. I saw a lot of death. And I thought, "You know what? We do a lot of things in the Congress, and sometimes a lot of things we do are not worth much." But I said, "You know, this is what I'm going to do. I'm going to go back to the Congress, I'm going to travel, I'm going to try to legislate, try to pass some legislation and help." And so this is what I've been doing since 1983. I've traveled to 130 nations and have been involved with human rights and hunger, those kind of programs. And I love it because I feel like I am at least trying to show a sermon rather than speak a sermon. Today I want to talk mostly about the children in the DRC and the reason being is that they ought to be the primary beneficiaries of the peace accords, in my opinion. To secure the peace, it is critical that the sources which drive the conflict are addressed. And we all know that the ambitions to extract cobalt and other crucial minerals from the DRC have been driving much of the violence. And the second reason I'm here, I'm here on behalf of many friends at Africa New Day and 12 other nonprofit organizations that work in the DRC. They are seeking to free these children. They are seeking to provide education and therapy and offer food, administer healthcare, find employment alternatives for their future. And third, I'm here on behalf of leaders from business, finance, and several members of other parliaments who look to this committee for partnership in creating an international framework that can support clean supply chains of critical minerals that provide economic prosperity and a stronger governance for the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. You know, it's no secret, and it's been known for more than 15 years that children are being exploited and trafficked in the mining of cobalt in the Congo. And hundreds of investigative journalists have documented the problem in print and electronic media. Dozens of reports have been written by the UN, Amnesty International, U.S. and international universities. They all detail the links between the corrupt mining practices, the co-mingling of raw materials, the processing of all far away from any transparent system for accountability. And we believe that at least 40,000 children, and possibly up to 200,000 children under the age of 12, are working in the mining sector of DRC, earning less than $2 a day. Well over a decade of well-documented exploitation. This committee must recognize that the batteries made in China from the minerals extracted from the DRC, I call them blood batteries. Our cell phones, electric vehicles, they're subsidized by the labor of exploited people, especially children. And we must recognize there is a tremendous cost in human life in order for us to get cheap mobile phones. And they are powered by cobalt and lithium and blood. And these kids, you know, they're working seven days a week, they're working 12 hours a day, and they're working in conditions that are I've even heard that some of them are even three years old. A lot of them six, seven, and eight years old. They work without shoes, they have no safety conditions, and terrible conditions. Thirty years ago, Mr. Chairman, you and I, we used to travel together and go to different countries, and I remember that in Sierra Leone, we we came face to face with... ...conflict diamonds, what we called them blood diamonds. And they were what they were doing to children in Sierra Leone and Angola and even in the Congo. But I remember in Sierra Leone, Frank Wolf and I, former Congressman Frank Wolf and I, we traveled to Sierra Leone, we went to this refugee camp and all the children in the refugee camp had something missing. You know, their hand was cut off, their arm was cut off, their ear was cut off, their nose was cut off. I said, what is this? I've never seen anything like this. And it was because of blood diamonds. And these terrorist groups would come into these different places, similar to what's going on in the Congo. They would terrorize these neighborhoods and small villages and they'd seize these diamonds, they would not be registered in the country. And these diamonds would find their ways into De Beers, Tiffany's, Cartier's, and Americans bought 60 percent of these blood diamonds at one time. So we passed some legislation. You were part of that legislation, you and myself and Congressman Frank Wolf, and it turned into the Kimberley Process. And now, instead of people buying blood diamonds, only 60 percent of the Americans bought the blood diamonds, it's now down to 1 percent. And it was because of committees like this. So eventually this led to the Kimberley Process, which has brought greater transparency to the supply chain and it kept pressures on the suppliers to ensure fair practices and protected U.S. consumers from supporting terrorism. The mining of cobalt and other critical minerals in the DRC, they're not clean. And the vast majority of the companies who profit from the products made with these minerals, they know, they know that the system is fueled by exploited labor. The DRC has over $24 trillion worth of mineral resources. It's not a million, it's not a billion, it's $24 trillion worth of mineral resources which have yet to be tapped, which, if developed, could unleash the most amazing economic development to the families and tribes and government of the DRC. However, for too long, local officials have colluded with corrupt foreign businesses who extract these minerals, which exploit labor to enrich themselves and they deceive us, American consumers, Western nations. And sadly, instead of profiting from its wealth, the people of the DRC, they continue to live in deep poverty, with 73 percent of the 109 million people living below the international poverty line. So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Jacobs and members of the committee, for considering how to improve the situation. And certainly a political settlement is required. And further, the committee should consider the following actions, and a lot of this is in the legislation that you have introduced, Chairman Smith. Enforce through regulations a transparency requirement for cobalt and other critical minerals that enter the United States. Work with other governments to enact regulations so that there is a coordinated transparency mechanism for the critical mineral supply chain so that regulation reaches beyond just our markets, but all markets. Convene DRC and industry leaders to devise strategies that empower and sustain economic growth and stability for the long-term viability of a secure and healthy future. And require U.S. technology companies to adhere to clean supply chains and enforce it vigorously. And we also need to educate our people in America, our consumers, and I can talk more about that. But thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ambassador Hall, thank you so very much for that leadership that spans so many decades. It's been incredible. I'd like to now yield to Mr. Neema.

Chairman, ranking members, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to address the conflict in eastern DRC and the path forward for the Washington Accords. My core argument is quite simple. The Washington process and its agreements are significant diplomatic achievement, but the long-term success will depend on linking them to a broader political strategy that confront the internal drivers of instability in the DRC. First point, I would like to salute here the value of the Washington process. It has once again clarified Rwanda's role in supporting the M23 rebels, a fact now publicly acknowledged by its own ambassador here in the U.S., though it was framed as security collaboration. Furthermore, its innovative Regional Economic Integration Framework, the REIF, incentivize peace linking stability and shared regional development. However, a key vulnerability is the non-inclusion of other regional countries in that framework, here being Uganda and Burundi, which are still intervening in the DRC for both security and economic purposes. Finally, the pressure from this administration to have the M23 withdraw from Uvira early this year is a testament of the political leverage the U.S. has had over the warring parties in this crisis. My second point, we must recognize the interconnection between different peace processes. The Washington processes address the bilateral crisis between DRC and Rwanda. At the same time, the Doha process has opened direct talks between the Congolese government and the M23. That is very important. It recognizes the existence of an internal dynamic of the Congolese conflict. However, the progress remains quite slow in the Doha process. Why? Because it depends on the dynamic on the Washington process. Kinshasa still hopes external pressure on Rwanda will change the military dynamic on the ground. At the same time, the M23 still calculate its military leverage based on the pressure that Washington would put on Rwanda to sustain the crisis on the ground. Meanwhile, the African Union is working to find a way to implement the various resolution coming from Doha and Washington process. This fragmentation creates an unclear accountability from different parties, a lack of measurable milestone, and unintended marginalization of the AU, the organization which is very much best positioned to address the conflict on the ground because the conflict is happening in Africa. Third, I would like to ask to broaden our focus in this conflict. While Rwanda's interference in eastern DRC is real and must be stopped, there's no debate about that. However, Rwanda is not the primary drivers of Congo instability. Stopping Rwanda alone does not solve the issue of proliferation of armed groups in the DRC, being the like the ADF. The ADF has been killing hundreds of people almost on a weekly basis, but almost unreported. Or having the CODECO, the RED-Tabara, or the Wazalendo de Mobondo at outskirts of Kinshasa. It will not solve the profound governance failure, corruptions, and weak institution which allow these groups to regenerate and this conflict to reemerge after a few years. For more than 20 years, these weaknesses have been the real drivers of instability in the country. Until they are addressed properly, peace agreement will remain fragile. The instability in eastern DRC has for years evolved beyond the conflict mineral paradigm. Today, it's driven by local dispute, struggle over customary authority, community self-defense, and deep governance failures. Resource often finance violence, but they are not its main causes. So the real question here is not only how to end this crisis, but how to prevent the next one to happen. Therefore, for the Washington Accord to have a lasting impact, U.S. policymakers must take the decisive next step. The U.S. should publicly and decisively support an African Union-led facilitated Congolese dialogue. The goal here is not to engage the U.S. in an endless state-building process in the DRC. This is not the U.S. mission. But to use its considerable political leverage to champion a continental process that address the foundational crisis of governance, institution building, and national reconciliation in the DRC. This must include two non-negotiable elements: the meaningful inclusion of Congolese civil society. Chairman Smith has said that and Rep. Jacobs also has mentioned that, particularly those coming from structural institution like the Catholic Church and the Protestant Church to ensure societal buy-in into those process. Second, a component of justice and accountability, which has been missing in every agreement that's been signed here in Washington. Peace without justice risk being seen as an elite deal, fueling resentment and future cycle of violence. In conclusion, the Washington Accord and the REIF provides a crucial foundation. But if we address only the M23 and cross-border issues with Rwanda, we will miss the deeper disease. The strategic partnership agreement and the REIF will not survive if Congo internal fragility continues to undermine them. Partnership must be anchored in institution and accountability, not in personalities or short-term politics. Finally, last, lasting stability requires rebuilding the Congolese state itself. By anchoring the Washington process within a supported AU-led comprehensive strategy, the U.S. can ensure its own long-term interest, bolster strategic partnership with the DRC, and help achieve a peace that is both just and durable. Thank you.

Thank you very, very much. I just to begin the questioning. Ambassador Hall, on the cobalt issue, the hope is that if this agreement were to truly bear the fruit that we all hope and pray that it will, the need to pass legislation like mine, which I've been pushing now for several years, becomes moot. You know, if the cobalt stays in and the other minerals, coltan and all the others, inside of DR Congo or are processed by a nearby friendly country that is not a human rights abuser like the Chinese nation, then we will have achieved much. And my hope is, and I said this to President Tshisekedi when he met with a number of us last week, that we want the wealth to stay inside of DR Congo so that the people will benefit first and foremost. And that means the children, that means the families. I mean, the wealth is so extraordinary and unfortunately the people who want to steal it by force and by deception are ever present. So the hope is that that will happen. My bill would provide a rebuttable presumption that anything coming from China, cobalt, is inadmissible to the U.S. We know that the EV fleet that the Chinese is producing, which is now growing in numbers every single day, for instance in the EU, is a huge money maker for Xi Jinping. So he wants that cobalt in the worst way. President Tshisekedi made it clear that he's trying to get a better deal, but I do believe that so long as China, which has no such thing as a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act like we do, you can count on them engaging in this in a very corrupt and misleading way. And the fact of the matter is that the people of Congo are suffering because of it. So I hope we can get our bill passed. I hope that the Accord eclipses the reason to do it. But you're right, and we need, and you might want to speak to this, just as you did with the blood diamonds, make American consumers especially aware that when you buy a diamond, know what its source is. Well, when you go and go into one of Elon Musk's showrooms and you're buying one of his EVs, know what it is. Every time I see an EV on the road, every time, and there's a lot of them in this area, I think how many children and how many adults were victimized in order to procure that cobalt coming out of coming out of China. So I, you know, if somebody wants to drive an EV, that's God bless them, all to them, all the power to them. But it's got to be with a supply chain that is not tainted in a way that this one is today. And your number you just gave us of what, 200,000 kids being hurt by the mining. I mean, that is just off the charts. Those kids are not going to school, they're not getting good nutrition, and above all, they're being exploited by by these people. So that's something you might want to speak to in terms of making American consumers aware, other consumers as well. We've reached out to the Europeans and they're looking at legislation at the House of Commons and you helped to make that happen, to do a bill similar to ours. Let cobalt come out of DRC, but let it be processed in a way that is absolutely above board. Secondly, I just want to ask about the MONUSCO. You know, it's the peacekeeping by that organization has been flawed over the decades, but it's still needed. I visited them when under Ambassador Swing, little kids were being exploited, forced into prostitution, but especially being exploited, 12, 13 year olds by the peacekeepers. So I had four hearings, I went to Goma, visited with them, raised the issue profoundly and strongly and in every other way I could think of. And to his credit, Kofi Annan did a zero tolerance policy for the blue helmets. Six months later I had another hearing and I said it's zero compliance with the zero tolerance policy. So we got to make sure that the peacekeepers, one, are very well vetted so that they're not engaging in in sexual predatory activity, especially against children, but all people, all women especially. But also that they have a they've been reauthorized, it was reauthorized as we all know in December. The troop strength is relatively significant. But I do remind myself and MONUSCO has it on their fact sheets, 304 of their soldiers have died and personnel, they also have police. So it's not without risk. But their rules of engagement have to be such, in my opinion, that they can help truly make the peace where necessary. And so that comes down to leadership. I'm sorry to say that the South African nation has pulled its peacekeepers out. I think that was a very sad and tragic chain of events that has happened here by the President of South Africa. They had about 700 plus peacekeepers out of the 12,000 approximately. So it's a loss. But with the right kind of direction, and I mean this, the right kind of leadership, the peacekeepers can really make a difference. We've seen it in other places, Tony, you and I have seen it in in Sudan, we saw it in South Sudan where the peacekeepers had a less than robust rules of engagement and things happened right under their noses. Just as some openings, but if you could, I just remind everybody that 70 percent of the world's cobalt reserves come from the DRC and some say the number is higher. So again, it could produce great wealth. Let that all accrue to the people of the DRC. And again on Rwanda, you know, we have called and if you look at the reauthorization of the peacekeeping, they really, really call on Rwanda to do more with their forces to step back and stop aiding and abetting groups like M23. It's just got to stop. I mean, to use rape as a weapon, you mentioned Ethiopia and I worked with you on that, you took the lead on that, Tony, Ambassador Hall years ago. But I remember when we realized that Mengistu was using food as a weapon. You know, one of the worst and most well-documented atrocities, food was used as a weapon to attract people, then they would kill them. And how many people died in Ethiopia, it was horrific. And so thank you for your leadership on that. So if you could start with that. Educating the American consumer.

Well, you said a lot of amazing things, Mr. Chairman. And you know, I remember what Nelson Mandela said, that education is the most powerful tool to change the world. And one of the things that of course we need to pass your legislation, your legislation, you have three or four pieces of legislation. And I think it's important to have penalties in there that people that deal in cobalt where there's child labor to have stiff penalties and prison. If you're caught dealing in this issue and this is a law passed by the United States by you and your committee, that you deal with them harshly. The other thing that I think is important, it's important for our people in America and other nations that we're working with, especially in Great Britain and the European nations, that if they're our consumers need to know that their iPhones and their batteries and their rechargeable electric cars, they're made with cobalt. And as you said, 70 to 80 percent of this is coming from China. And it's made, a good portion of it is made with child labor. And people need to start ask the question, if this iPhone is made with cobalt and it's related to child labor, then I'm not going to buy it. And we did that with blood diamonds. You know, De Beers sold a lot of women on the idea that diamonds are a girl's best friend. Matter of fact, they sold my wife on it. I had a heck of a time convincing my wife that diamonds are not a girl's best friend when it comes to blood diamonds. But the fact is that when we were able to educate women when they went into jewelry stores and went into Cartier and went into De Beers stores and jewelry stores, are these diamonds, are they blood diamonds? Are they are they from countries like Sierra Leone and the Congo and these kind of countries where these terrorists are using them to kill people? And when we got women to say that and they started to ask the jewelry stores, this was translated back to the Congo and Sierra Leone and it stopped, it stopped blood diamonds and the Kimberley Process was developed. And now, you know, these blood diamonds where we bought 60 percent or America bought 60 percent of the blood diamonds, it's now down to 1 percent. And that's the same thing we have to do with cobalt, I think. We need to pass the strong laws that are in your bills, but we also need to educate our consumers. And they need to ask the question, if this iPhone and this battery is made with cobalt and a good portion of it is developed and made through child labor, then I'm not going to buy it. And you know what? That'll stop it in a minute. But it took us, it took us five years to pass that blood diamond bill because it took a long time to educate consumers. And that's what I think, that's what we're going to have to do eventually. Our consumers have to be educated.

Thank you. And thank you all again. So I think it's clear we have a long way to go before peace is actually realized in eastern Congo and neither DRC nor Rwanda has upheld its commitments that they agreed to. And you know, as I said, we are still waiting on tough actions promised by the Trump administration two months ago. So Mr. Neema, what is your assessment of the U.S.-led peace process so far? And what do you see as the strengths and weaknesses of the current peace processes?

Thank you. And as I said earlier in my statement, the peace processes created a framework for accountability for all the parties involved in this process so far. So far, it's also established responsibility of Rwanda in that process, which they have acknowledged. But the peace process is missing in a sense where it's not connected to a broader issue of peace and stability in the country. And I think it's very important for that peace to succeed is to be focused on internal issue of the DRC beyond the simple fact of geopolitical tension and geopolitical framework. And I do believe that the geopolitical framework of the peace process may undermine the incentive for different stakeholders on how they approach the United States and the incentive to engage in various different processes that leads to peace and stability in the DRC. So I do believe that it's very important to reframe the peace process and to put it in a broader context with the goal of peace and stability in the DRC and try to move away from the geopolitical framing of the whole process.

Thank you. And if you had some specific recommendations for the administration on how to get the process back on track, you know, not actually not just to get the process back on track, but to achieve that enduring peace and stability in DRC, what would they be?

My few recommendations as I have made in my written statement would be first of all to include civil society. Both of you have agreed on that process because they are the key element to societal buy-in in that process. Because without them, we do have a very fragile peace process. But the other one, and as I said in my oral statement, is the need of a Congolese political dialogue. That is a must that we have to address because we cannot look into that crisis from an external point of view and believe the external actors are the key element in that crisis. The key element in this crisis are internal to the DRC. If they are not addressed, the next three years we're going to find ourselves here having to address why Uganda is still fueling arm deals in the eastern DRC, why Burundi, a change of leadership has led Burundi to become the enemy of the DRC. And if we do not address those empirical issues, the fundamental issues on the problem, we won't be able to address the issue. So I think that the U.S. administration supporting publicly and openly an African Union-led because it's what's already on the way for those Congolese dialogue will be important. Given the leverage the United States has over Kinshasa today, that's going to be a strong signal for having Kinshasa to agree in those processes.

Thank you. And Mr. Tan and Ambassador Hall, the President has promised swift punitive actions on the spoilers to peace, including Rwanda. What specific punitive measures, sanctions on individuals, export restrictions on minerals from M23 controlled areas, suspension of military cooperation or other tools should the administration deploy immediately to demonstrate that American warnings are serious? And what message does our inaction send to the Congolese people?

I think one of the problems with the Washington Accords that I see, and especially the parts that I've read, it doesn't say anything about child labor. It doesn't say anything about child soldiers. It doesn't say anything about violence against women. And so those things are left out. And those are important issues. And they're important family issues. And so that's what I would say about that particular issue.

I think for the administration, when it comes to the sanctions that the State Department has previously mentioned wanting to enforce, I believe the targeting of organizations that are closely tied to the RPF are primarily important. Going after organizations such as Crystal Ventures and the Rwandan Investment Groups, both holding companies which are closely tied up to state and military financial investors, will force the Rwandan government to continue to comply with their acknowledgment of their alignment with M23 by that action enforce M23 continued M23 withdrawal.

Thank you. And then my last question is back to you, Mr. Neema. As you know, in addition to the Washington Accords, the U.S. signed the U.S.-DRC Bilateral Strategic Partnership Agreement, which is meant to ensure access to critical minerals and deepen economic cooperation. I know you have a lot of expertise in DRC's mining sector. What have been the main barriers to Western investment in DRC's industrial mining operations? And what does the U.S.-DRC Strategic Partnership Agreement do, if anything, to address these?

The main barrier when it comes to investment, foreign investment in the mining sector in the DRC, especially when it comes to copper and cobalt, has been simply the bad governance in the mining sectors. The lack of transparency, the lack of clear management revenue system, and political interference in the mining activities. Those have been the main barrier for investment for any kind of foreign investment, being those who are present or those who even thinking of coming to the DRC. And the Washington agreement, when it comes to bilateral agreement with the DRC, of course it offers an opportunity for diversification for the DRC. But at the same time, it create a particular cases for U.S. investment. As much as I understand the need for the United States to protect its investment in the DRC, I also do believe that the need to have a clear good governance in the mining sector applies to all, not only to U.S. companies. Because the framework provision provide strong statement to protect U.S. investment in the DRC. But I think those provision should be applied to the whole mining sectors in a way that at the end, the mining sector for the DRC is open for business for all countries, not only specific countries.

Thank you. I yield back.

Thank you very much. Mr. Olszewski.

Thank you, Chairman Smith, and to Ranking Member Jacobs for holding this very important hearing. We know that across the DRC, thousands of children are being exploited, whether it's the child labor that's been covered extensively already in this hearing or being used as armed fighters, pushed into dangerous work in mines and pushed into the military field. We've heard harrowing stories of boys abducted by armed groups, being dragged by their villages from their villages, marched into the forest, put through weapons training, forced to participate in massacres, acting as human shields. And while the U.S. and the DRC have deepened cooperation through the Washington Accords and the Strategic Partnership Agreement, these frameworks include little to no enforceable guardrails on labor rights and child protection. So I wanted to add this extra layer... ...in addition to the child safety abuses in the mines that we've discussed. For example, the Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which I want to thank Chairman Smith for his continued leadership on, requires the U.S. to identify countries whose governments force or associated armed groups use child soldiers. It's now more than six months past the June 30th statutory deadline and that list remains unpublished. So the State Department needs to do so and to do so without any further delay. I want to ask first about these child soldiers to you, Ambassador Hall and Mr. Neema, and then I have a question if it's okay, Mr. Chairman, my time is still okay, about children being used as weapons of war through violence. But the first question is, how can the U.S. best support efforts to prevent child recruitment and expand opportunities for affected children to reintegrate back into their communities around this issue of child soldiers and what type of U.S. assistance programs have been most effective and why is it in our interest to support them?

Boy, I tell you, that's a tough issue. Last time I was in the Congo, I met with child soldiers and I met with several different groups of child soldiers. They were in a particular refugee camp run by a faith-based group. And the thing that I remember with the child soldiers was that, wow, it was there were about 150 of them and as I spoke to them and listened to them and asked questions of them and they asked questions of me, their eyes were dead. I mean, it was like they'd been stunned and tortured and used. And I had asked the faith-based group there how hard it is to bring these kids back who have been part of killing and torturing and how their lives have been changed. This is one of the great tragedies of the Congo, a tremendous number of child soldiers. And it's a tough issue to work with these kids and to see a gleam of sunshine was so hard and after even two or three hours of just being with them and listening to them, I mean, it was so hard to see some sunshine. And it's a tough issue. These are tough kids. They've been absolutely crucified. But there are lots of wonderful non-profit groups and faith groups in the Congo that are working with them and there have been some successes. It's a tough road, very difficult.

Certainly welcome the chance to get more details on some of those organizations. Perhaps we can find ways to support them further in that work.

Anything we can do to support those organizations, boy, I would recommend it. That is a tough ministry.

Yeah. And just one more issue, children being used as weapons of war through violence. UNICEF estimates that children made up between 35 and 45 percent of the nearly 10,000 cases of rape and sexual violence reported to protection actors in just January and February. If you extrapolate that out, that means during the most intense phases of last year's conflict in the eastern DRC, a child was raped every half an hour. So that's not one-off, that is a systemic crisis. It's a weapon of war, it's a deliberate tactic of error. And so in addition to these child soldiers, I guess I'm curious just to close my time, Mr. Chairman, if there are concrete steps that we can take in both of these instances to press for accountability for these conversion of children into child soldiers, for these systemic acts of sexual violence against children, how do we ensure those perpetrators can face consequences? And we can open it up to anyone who wants to answer there.

Well, you've got legislation before you and you've got wonderful civil society organizations that are working there. I know that in the same visit that I made where I met with child soldiers, I also met with a lot of women that have been part of sexual violence. I've never seen a country that had so many women that were sexually violated as I was in and I've been to 130 nations. I've never seen a country that had so much sexual violence in my life other than in the Congo. And there are amazing groups there that are working. And you know, with this Washington Accords peace agreement, we ought to really be pushing for more accountability and more understanding of what's going on in the Congo, not just for the minerals, but for the people themselves and really pushing and supporting the civil groups and the faith-based groups that are just absolutely wonderful.

Safe to say we have our work cut out for us still. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chair recognizes Ms. Cherfilus-McCormick.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all of our witnesses here today. It seems like the common thread that we all want to ask questions about are the abuses to the children and also sexual violence against women. Now, my question's for Mr. Tan. When they were putting together the Washington Accords, why was it silent or was it actually silent when it came to the violence against women and also children?

Thank you for the opportunity to address that question. I do not speak on behalf of the administration, but based on my research, the primary drivers behind the Washington Accords were getting both presidents to agree on both the security and economic standards. And my understanding is thereafter, as we're seeing with slow but incremental implementation of these accords, the engagement of civil society such as both the Protestant and the Catholic Church will be intertwined not to undercut what has already happened, but to state the importance of holding leadership accountable and ultimately that the enforcement is on the United States, but in order to see successes in this, both leaders are going to have to see this through on their ends.

And those two civil society organizations, will they be actually handling the situation of sexual violence and also violence against children or the abuses of children?

Based on my research, I would hope to see that these organizations would be intertwined with international organizations as Ambassador Hall mentioned, such as UNICEF, who are working on the ground and have close collaboration with the U.S. government.

My question's for Mr. Neema. You mentioned civil societies being integrated for us to have success. Which ones would you prioritize? Because there's so many different civil society groups. If you named five or four, what would be the top to the bottom that we should actually prioritize immediately so we can have a positive result?

The reality is today and civil society in the DRC is a very complex unit. It's going to be quite difficult to pinpoint because if you start to pinpoint on them, some would say why are you excluding the others and some may even threaten the process because they're not included.

If we're not going to mention specific organizations, how would you classify it? Because as I mentioned, with the abuses we're seeing on children and women are astonishing. And our priority is to deal with that. But I want to know from your perspective, what is the priority? Because we may have one belief and I want to know from you actually what would they be? Maybe one through five so we know the categorizations.

I'll mention at least two, I think those were even represented in the representatives met with Chairman Smith, is the CENCO and the ECC. Both Catholic Church, faith-based organization, they have a broader national outreach. They have a wide range of programs integrating children, women in their activities. So integrating them in the process allows you to have an access to a wide range of established network for many years that's going to allow you to touch those communities that are even under in war zones where they're still active because the Catholic Church despite having wars in Goma and Bukavu are still working, they still have activities, same with the Protestant Church. So it's really important those two organizations based on their outreach to be able to be included. They're the only ones today with that level of outreach on a national level in the DRC.

So we're seeing violence against women increasing throughout the entire world. And do you believe that the Congolese government is interesting or prioritizing any kind of resolution towards stopping that violence or dealing with that violence?

Unfortunately, it's going to be difficult to say that we are seeing that prioritization taking place. We see a lot of the rhetoric, of course, government rhetoric in terms of the actions that are taken. But when you look into the numbers of violation against women, we see they're coming from both sides, both on the Congolese army side with the FARDC, with the Wazalendo who were made of former armed groups that have been now allied with the Congolese government, also on the M23 side. So on the Congolese part side, we don't see we see a lot of rhetoric as I say, but in terms of actual actions in terms to address those issues, we still have to see much more than rhetoric.

So that's my concern, is that there's nobody who's really prioritizing it and even right now we don't have any women who are on the panel who can actually speak to the violence that's going on with women. And we don't have anybody in their own voice to speak up on why women are being targeted in this manner. And so looking forward on how we can actually make sure that this accord is successful, we do have to support and acknowledge the role of women who are mothers to these children who are being abused. The compounded effect on families won't be resolved if we don't actually tend to each person in that family. And so I wanted to bring that up. Another thing I wanted to talk about are inadvertent offenses. And maybe Hall or Mr. Tan can answer this. So we've been hearing that many Congolese have been applying for visas and they meet all the requirements and they're being denied. Is there a possibility, have we thought this through that maybe we are offending the partners who we're trying to work with?

These are exactly the reason why you don't have women in this panel today. Because there are organizations in this room who have tried to lobby to come to D.C. for advocacy to have women from civil society from those warring those warring area that have been denied visa here. So the issue that you've mentioned, it's a very very important issue today where we cannot in one hand say we are helping the people of the DRC at the same time not allowing them to have access to D.C. to plead their own cases.

Well, I think this is part of the cultural competency that us as Americans have to learn. We can't be trying to build a relationship but be offending the entire community at the same time. We have to be open and make sure that we are welcoming if we're forcing ourselves upon and I think part of the buy-in that's lacking on why we're not seeing real change or real growth or in this peace is because it seems like there wasn't buy-in from the civil society. And I would hope that we can identify more ways that we can get buy-in. And I thank you so much, Representative Hall, for being here and all you've done because what you bring to this is not just the idea that we need to work on this from an economic standpoint, but the compassion that is needed. And so thank you for all the work you've done and the compassion you brought to this conversation because I think as the United States, we lead not just the world, but we must lead with humanitarianism and also compassion. So thank you so much for doing that. And the last question I wanted to ask was the sensitivity to the standards. Do you believe, what would you recommend? In this climate that we're in right now, we already talked about several situations going on. What do you think we can add to get greater buy-in when it comes to the Washington Accords so we can see tangible success and tangible results? That's for anybody.

I do believe that one of the main points would be for Washington to send a clear message that the Washington Accord is not a geopolitical tool that's going to embolden bad governance in the DRC. I've mentioned it in my opening statement that we see a slow process in other processes, peace processes because we have observed that there is a slowness from the Kinshasa from Kinshasa to move forward because there is that understanding that the support of Washington is providing them a blank check to do whatever they needs to do. So I do believe it's very important that that needs to be conveyed that the Washington Accord, the partnership between the DRC and the United States is not a geopolitical tool. The time where the United States was supporting Mobutu against good governance are over. This time for good governance to come to fore.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Mr. Jackson, gentleman from Illinois.

Thank you, Chairman Smith. Thank you, panelists, for making yourselves available. My first question is to you, Mr. Neema. In your view, does the regional economic integration framework provide enough economic incentives for Rwanda to cease support to the M23 and withdraw its own troops from eastern DRC?

The REIF provide enough incentive for all parties involved to engage in peace and stability in the region, to be part of a development a regional development processes. But at the same time as I said in my opening remarks, the fact that when you do not include country like Burundi and Uganda and other countries that are still militarily active in the DRC for both security and economic reason, you are seeding you are putting the seed for further instability in the region. And plus, just as I also mentioned, the REIF itself will not solve the instability in eastern DRC. It will only address the external element of the crisis without addressing the internal element of the crisis. When you read the REIF, you're going to realize there's a less very less elements regarding how to strengthen good governance within the DRC in a way that tomorrow or after tomorrow, no external country is going to come and be a threat to the countries. And I think that needs to be addressed.

One other question. The agreement requires DRC to undertake specific business-friendly legal reforms to encourage investment. In your views, what additional steps are necessary for DRC to sufficiently improve its business climate and attract U.S. investors?

For me, it's the goal should not be thinking about attracting U.S. investor. The goal should be about thinking how we should be having a healthy business environment in the DRC that is open to anybody who comes to do right business in the DRC. And for that, the DRC needs to do a lot in terms of mining reform, transparency, revenue management transparency in the mining sector. That's key to attract any business to want to come to do business in the DRC. Cut political interference, cut corruption, cut any form of political intervention. In the case we've mentioned artisanal miners here, we had reports of artisanal miners being supported by the presidential guards and the mining other big mining activities. Those kind of activities and support needs to be stopped for us to have a healthy mining environment in the DRC.

Thank you. Mr. Hall, thank you and I appreciate your comments, particularly leading in with what's best for the children. Oftentimes I hear about critical minerals and we don't talk about the children. I say the wealth of this land in DRC and Rwanda and all these great countries, the wealth is above the soil, not beneath the soil. That this all starts with an investment and peace amongst the people. I believe not in the president's doctrine of peace through strength, but peace through righteousness is more scripturally correct. We've seen peace initiatives in the Central African Republic collapse under the weight of weak enforcement and wishful thinking. What leverage, economic, diplomatic, or otherwise, does the United States actually possess to compel compliance from actors who have historically ignored it?

I think you have the legislation before you. If you could pass it, Chris Smith's legislation, if you could pass it, it has very strong language in there. It has penalties, it has imprisonment, it has direction, it has strength. I think also at the same time that I mentioned earlier that we need to educate Americans, we need to educate consumers that if my iPhone that I'm going to buy is made with cobalt that's made by children, by child labor, then I'm not going to buy it. And when that message gets to businesses, I guarantee you they're going to change their tactics and they're going to put pressure on the Congolese, they're going to put pressure on China, and just like we did with the blood diamonds back in in the late 1990s, it absolutely stopped the selling of blood diamonds. When we educate our consumers and they start asking the question, is this iPhone made with cobalt, is it made with child labor, which a lot of it is today, 80 percent of this stuff, this phone is made probably with child labor, cobalt that's in this phone right here. When we start to ask questions like that, when people that live in Western nations in Europe and America start to ask questions like that, I guarantee you it'll start to change. And I guarantee you that people will really realize in China and and the people that are refining cobalt and these minerals, they will change, they'll have to change because people won't be buying. And cobalt will be starting to be a product that hopefully will be refined and mined in other countries like Indonesia and Zambia and Australia and America and Canada where it is today. And I think that's it's going to take that kind of buy-in, it's going to take that kind of education, I think.

Well, thank you so much. Thank you for your time, gentlemen, and I look forward into the future where we can have more or some female representation. They're the majority of the population, majority of the workforce, and I think they could be very well prepared to speak on their own behalf. And so with that, thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

Thank you. Ms. Jayapal.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is facing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis. More than 16 million people are in need of food assistance and millions of Congolese in North and South Kivu have been displaced due to advances by the M23. Before the Trump administration's gutting of USAID, the United States was responsible for nearly two-thirds of the humanitarian response in the DRC, with the vast majority of that funding going towards emergency food, protection, and medical relief. In addition to USAID cuts, the crisis has been exacerbated by the M23, a rebel group backed by the Rwandan government that has committed numerous human rights abuses against the Congolese people as it seeks to gain control over the eastern DRC. Attention from the Trump administration has been welcome in resolving this conflict, but I am concerned about the administration's capacity and long-term commitment to solving the crisis. We have already seen ceasefire violations and disagreements over terms of the Washington Accords and local civil society and Congolese women and girls were excluded from the agreement. The desire to increase the extraction of critical minerals is central to the administration's support for a peace agreement and strategic partnership agreement with the DRC. In the DRC, mining takes place on both an industrial and an artisanal level. Mr. Neema, can you discuss the differences between these two mining styles, artisanal and industrial?

It's very interesting because the mining sector in the DRC is taking place in a very in two different spectrums. You have as you mentioned artisanal miners and also industrial miners. Looking into the landscape of their mining activities, you see a lot of artisanal mining taking place in eastern DRC where we have the war in the in the area of when they exploit coltan, tin, tantalum and all of that because it's easy, it's accessible. You also have gold because it's done by the river. But you also have industrial mining where you have capital-intensive activities taking place. That's why we see them a lot in places like in the south in southeast of the DRC in the Katanga region where we have copper and cobalt because there artisanal mining activities as much as it's taking place are not as much as lucrative if they do it in the in the gold business in the eastern DRC for instance.

It's critical that we address abuses in the artisanal mining sector like poor safety conditions and child labor given our reliance on Congo's critical materials. But despite this, a USAID program that involved direct advocacy with the DRC government and artisanal miners to encourage responsible investment in and sourcing of minerals was shuttered. Mr. Neema, without conflict and atrocity prevention programs, how does the administration, how can the administration promote an ethical supply chain of critical minerals in the DRC sourced from artisanal mines that doesn't drive up violence and actually does promote sustainable peace?

It's true that you mentioned the program the USAID has supported in the DRC has helped in a certain to a certain extent and to a certain scope on the mining activities and the artisanal miners in the DRC. But however, the issue that you've mentioned about artisanal miners, the issue is not about nationality or any kind of nationality involved in the mining industry. The issue is about the bad governance in the mining industry in the DRC itself. It's the result of failure of many years to diversify the economy in the way that revenue revenue coming from the mining sectors are spilling over other part of the of the economy in the way that those local communities are not forced and are not feeling forced to go to the artisanal miners, they can go to school, they can open their own businesses. It's the fact that the mining sectors have lacked linkages in a way that it creates economic opportunities for community around. So I do believe that one of the key element would be to reform the mining sector in the way that it produce and it yield positive result through diversification of the economy so tomorrow we don't have artisanal miners taking place in the copper and cobalt industry in the DRC.

You're sort of getting at my very next question actually, which is just that the expansion of the mining sector hasn't led to the kind of prosperity for the Congolese people that we would like to see and instead in some cases has led to forced evictions of communities and environmental harm. And so I guess that follow-up question is what precautions then would you take, you talked about linking it to the broader economic sector in general, more opportunities for people, but what protections would you put in place to ensure that U.S. investment in any country's investment in the mining sector ensures that local communities are treated with dignity, see a greater share of the profits of the resources, and are connected to broader economic opportunities?

This is interesting part about the mining sector in the DRC. The legislation is there. When you look into the document, you see all the laws and regulation allowing mining companies' revenues to get to local communities to change local communities. But there is a gap between what is written and what is implemented on the ground. And this is I think one of the issue that the United States in its partnership with the DRC is going to have to look into closely to make sure that any mining activity coming from United a an American company would follow through to those agreement. And this is why I get back to the point I've made earlier that it's going to be important that those agreement be shaped from an economic perspective for the DRC people, for the DRC advantage and not from a geopolitical perspective that may sometimes skew the debate and lead to suboptimal economic agreement between the DRC and American companies that can be involved in those mining deals.

Very interesting. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

Just a few follow-up and final questions if I could. You know, when we talk about the abuse of women, 20 years ago I visited a group called Heal Africa. It's a hospital that specializes in a number of things, orthopedics and all that, but also in treating women who have been horribly raped, often gang-raped, sometimes with the husband watching in order to further demoralize him and her, especially her. And Heal Africa does fistula repair for women who have because of the sexual violence, giving them their life back physically to some extent. But it also had something that I found very amazing and that was the faith component. The fact that they were so committed to dealing with the spiritual hurt that the woman was suffering and to let her know, just like we do, Tony, as you know, Mr. Ambassador, in the whole effort on trafficking, to help women who have been victimized to come to a faith reconciliation. They usually blame themselves, these women do not because it's so but often in the trafficking space they do. So Heal Africa is just an amazing asset in Goma. So we do all of us do care deeply about the women and and we try to help wherever we can. You know, a question that all of you might want to take a look at or answer: why? It's money, it's greed, it's ethnic animosities that continue over the course of decades, years, even centuries perhaps. But greed, what a driver of bad behavior that is. So we need to take the profit out of it and I think that's why like you did with the blood diamonds, Tony, we need to make it so that those elements are not marketable if they're coming from a nefarious source where they've been stolen or from a Chinese mine. And I can't say enough, the modus operandi of Xi Jinping is exploitation in China. I had a series of hearings on what they do in the fishing industry, nothing to do with DR Congo, but learned and we had this investigative reporting team that did break just unbelievable investigative reporting that found that half of the calamari that is on the world market comes off slave labor on Chinese boats and you go on and on with each type of fish. That's what they do. ...that South Africa's unilateral withdrawal from MONUSCO is influenced by the need to consolidate and realign the resources of the South African National Defense Force following 27 years of South Africa's support to UN peacekeeping efforts in DRC. So all of us are, what a commitment that has been for all these years. Maybe it's compassion fatigue or peacekeeping fatigue, but they are pulling out and maybe they'll reconsider. They're doing it by the end of 2026. We need robust troops that can really handle the job. So that was a major disappointment by South Africa to pull their peacekeeping troops. So if any of you want to comment on that. The work of President Lourenço from Angola, you might want to speak to how well that, like I said in my opening, he's hoping to do it, we believe, by to have this dialogue that we hope will be maximum inclusive in for DR Congo. And if that happens, I think there's one thing that we really need to emphasize again and I want to emphasize it with exclamation points. The more we get the National Episcopal Conference of Congo, or CENCO, involved and the Church of Christ in Congo, ECC, the more likely this will succeed because they do have a constituency that is incredibly large. And when it comes to peacekeeping, who's more committed to peacekeeping than the churches? Nobody. And I loved what you said about always preach the gospel and when necessary use words. I love that phrase. It comes from Saint Francis of Assisi as we all know. But they do it every day at great risk to themselves. So the more they're integrated and relied upon to keep warring factions and greedy factions at bay, the better. One thing that I heard this morning from the two leaders in our meeting was that they have had outreach to Rwanda, to the faith community there. I think the more that there's a combining of those great entities of faith, the better. Because they should be admonishing the political leadership to pursue a true path of peace, get rid of the greed, and just look out for your constituents number one as a duty given to us by God. So any of those points if you wanted to speak to it, any of our distinguished panelists.

In my as my final comment, I think I will speak to one of the point that you've mentioned across this conversation around child labors in the mining sector. I think it's very important to point out. It's true that we find child labors in the cobalt and copper industry in the DRC and elsewhere as well, and even in non-mining activities, in agriculture, in spaces where you don't have mining activities taking places. The simple fact that we see those child labors in those spaces speaks to a much deeper issue that not related to any nationality or to any activities. It speaks to an issue of poverty, of bad governance that needs to be addressed in a way that tomorrow we don't find child labors in other sectors of the economy. And I do believe that the United States would help really the DRC into addressing those issue by importantly reframing the conversation from understand the appeal from geopolitical perspective, but from reframing it in a way that to address poverty and bad governance in the DRC in a way that tomorrow we don't find ourselves with child labors in other sector of the economy because at the end, it doesn't benefits the country as a whole. To my final point, you mentioned President Lourenço initiative taking place right now to help to have a Congolese dialogue taking place, and it just speaks to the comment I've made earlier. I believe that the United States will play a tremendous role by showing a clear and publicly support that process in a way that a message is sent clear for all the parties involved that the path for long-term peace and stability in the DRC goes through a Congolese dialogue that include all the parties in a way to address the root causes of different issues and stability in the DRC. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I always love your passion, your compassion, and your empathy, and you've always led the way and we need your legislation to pass. It's important.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you bringing up the issue of South Africa's withdrawal. I think that while the withdrawal is unfortunate, this is a reminder of the importance of the Washington Accords and the enforceability and the leverage that the United States currently has over the DRC and Rwanda to see this through. I think that South Africa's withdrawal is reflective of the complicated situation on the ground, but should not be viewed as a regional abandonment of the Congo, but rather a reminder that political strain here, especially in the African continent, is present and that the Washington Accords have made significant progress and will continue to make significant progress so long as that we're able to see through on the enforcement mechanisms.

Thank you. I'll just conclude, I was at that signing ceremony as I said in my opening along with our distinguished chairman of the full committee. And I pinched myself a few times, I couldn't believe what I was watching, it was so encouraging. And then a couple days later we saw bloodletting. But that doesn't mean we don't take our eye or keep we have to keep our eye on the ball. But one of the things that I like about the Washington Accords, it's plural accords, is the regional economic integration framework between the DRC and Rwanda. It aims to create a transparent, stable, responsible driver of economic growth. It formalizing artisanal mining, establishes traceability, that great important concept that you have worked so hard your entire life for, Mr. Ambassador. And then fostering secure conflict-free mineral supply chains. That's what we want. And you know, we want Congo to flourish, we want Rwanda to flourish. The killing has to stop. And we will do another hearing soon. We're going to be inviting the faith leaders and others. We want to do a whole series to keep the focus on what can we do, what must be done. I do believe that it's likely, if there's not a change of heart on the part of some, that there will be some sanctioning towards perhaps towards Rwanda, maybe towards DRC, but I think Rwanda. And it's time. I mean, how long can you wait? If you're the next victim, you're saying, hey, what about me? And we really care deeply about these victims. We want them to thrive, not be worried about the bayonets and the bullets and the rapists, I should say. So we're going to keep doing it in this subcommittee and we're going to try really hard to get our legislation passed. So thank you. Anyone want to say before I close down? This hearing's adjourned and I thank you. [Gavel sounds.]