Ending Supply Chain Dependency: Aligning Tools, Capital, and Partnerships
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Foreign Affairs U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsBrian Mast
This committee recognizes the importance of the issues before us and is grateful to have you here to speak with us today. Your full statements will be made a part of the record and I will ask each of you to keep your spoken remarks to roughly five minutes to allow time for members' questions. And in that, Mr. Black, you are recognized for any opening statement that you wish to give.
Ben Black
Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, and members of the committee for this opportunity to discuss DFC's efforts to end supply chain dependency. I'm proud to be here today to represent the hundreds of committed professionals at DFC who work every day to advance our mission. I'd also like to thank you all for the bipartisan support of DFC's December reauthorization.
Under President Trump's leadership, DFC is equipped to be a leading force for restoring US economic security. We now have $205 billion of investment capacity and a greater ability to deploy debt, equity, and insurance across the capital stack. DFC can invest in technology, energy, and critical minerals nearly anywhere in the world and address vulnerable supply chains wherever they exist. Since reauthorization, DFC has rebuilt our pipeline to more than 340 deal opportunities totaling $78 billion across agriculture, healthcare, financial services, energy, technology, and critical minerals. We are focused on regions vital to US economic security, like the Western Hemisphere, East Asia and the Pacific, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, amongst others.
As CEO of the DFC, I have made it my mission to transform DFC into a best-in-class financial institution. We have begun a rigorous process to value our entire portfolio dating back to the OPIC days and intend to dynamically share investment performance for all administrations, both previous and future. I'm also pleased to report we have reduced investment timelines by an average of 10 weeks. More importantly, I have sought to align DFC's investment strategy with the enduring principles of American economic statecraft. American economic statecraft, the use of our nation's economic and financial power to guarantee our strategic interests, has guided America through its greatest moments.
Alexander Hamilton understood that strong financial institutions and the ability to produce essential goods are vital to securing America's global position. That tradition gave rise to the Panama Canal and later inspired the Marshall Plan, which rebuilt war-torn Europe, anchored European markets to the American system, and delivered decades of stability and growth. Today, I want to highlight how the DFC is building on that tradition of success. First, DFC will directly challenge our adversaries in the most strategically contested sectors by financing transactions that diplomacy and private markets alone cannot deliver. Last month, we announced a monumental agreement for one of Kazakhstan's largest telecom networks to expand access to US-aligned trusted service providers.
We are committed to helping others adopt this model, especially in the Western Hemisphere, where China's Digital Silk Road cannot entrench its influence. Second, DFC will prioritize large, capital-intensive projects. Our goal is to build holistic economic ecosystems anchored to US capital markets and structured to create returns for American taxpayers and meaningful economic development for our allies. DFC's $553 million loan to restore the Lobito Atlantic Railway exemplifies the 1.5 billion DFC has committed across Africa since my confirmation. This vital transportation corridor connects the mineral-rich Democratic Republic of Congo through Zambia to the port of Lobito in Angola.
DFC financing will help establish a Western-aligned source of critical minerals and also strengthen local trade by reducing the cost of shipping by as much as 30%. Throughout human civilization, industrialization has been the single greatest force for lifting people out of poverty. Industrialization depends on reliable energy, a sector vital to America's interests as the world's leading producer and exporter of oil and natural gas.
across South and Southeast Asia, ensuring US LNG and American equipment help power the energy needs of a strategic region. Finally, we are mobilizing private capital through sophisticated financial structures that reduce risk for investors and create enduring American influence in critical sectors and regions. That approach underpins our $600 million contribution to the 1.8 billion Critical Minerals Consortium with Orion Resource Partners. DFC's board recently approved an additional 900 million of financing to support Orion CMC's rapidly expanding pipeline of mining and minerals opportunities to help address China's strategic chokeholds. DFC's US-Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund, or UREIF, is another example.
This 150 million joint fund is mobilizing private investment in Ukraine's recovery and can provide a blueprint for DFC investment in other regions vital to America's long-term interests. Our partners want to work with us because our model is better. America's most transformative economic partnerships were built through the power of private investment, the discipline of capital markets, and the laser focus of finance. The Trump administration's restoration of American economic statecraft will guarantee our country's success. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Thomas Hardy
Thank you, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, and distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I appreciate the chance to discuss how US Trade and Development Agency works tirelessly to help end America's supply chain dependency on malign from malign actors. USTDA serves as the US government's catalyst for critical infrastructure development in emerging markets by funding project preparation, including feasibility studies, technical assistance, and pilot projects. We transform infrastructure opportunities into investment-ready projects that attract financing, expand opportunities for US companies, and above all, advance America's strategic interest.
We focus our work in the critical minerals, energy, transportation, and digital infrastructure sectors because they are the backbone of resilient supply chains. Africa is central to this effort. Along the Lobito Corridor, USTDA is advancing projects that support critical minerals in Angola, Zambia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, while improving access to Angola's ports. Our activities span power generation, mineral processing, and transportation infrastructure, all helping to unlock investment, strengthen supply chains, and expand opportunities for American companies. We apply rigorous standards to our work, supporting trusted partners while avoiding projects that fail to meet high environmental and labor standards or that reinforce our strategic competitors.
We are applying the same comprehensive approach in the Philippines, where our support for the Luzon Economic Corridor includes supporting the development of 132-mile railway to Subic Bay and the expansion of port infrastructure to accommodate larger vessels and improve ship repair operations. None of this work happens in isolation, though. USTDA prepares infrastructure projects for investments by coordinating with my colleagues here from DFC and MCC, as well as EXIM, to ensure our projects are structured to address these institutions' financing requirements from the outset. For example, we are currently working with MCC to prepare strategic digital infrastructure projects for potential financing, including mobile connectivity projects in Indonesia and national data center in Tonga. These efforts demonstrate how US tools, capital, and partnerships come together to offer trusted alternatives to strategic competitors.
Two recent successes demonstrate how USTDA's partnership-based model delivers results. In Palau, the United States partnered with its Quad allies to design the replacement of a Chinese-built mobile network with a secure nationwide 4G/5G system built with trusted US technologies. USTDA funded the project's technical preparation, laying the foundation for its implementation. In this geostrategic part of the world, this project has generated exports for American companies while strengthening Palau's digital security and providing a model for nations across the Pacific seeking trusted telecommunications infrastructure. In Sierra Leone, USTDA funded the initial project preparation for the country's first-ever natural gas-fired power project.
That early work helped pave the way for $412 million in financing and insurance from the Development Finance Corporation, as well as complemented the work that MCC invested to modernize Sierra Leone's electricity grid. Together, these efforts again demonstrate how coordinated US engagement can mobilize private capital, strengthen energy security, and deliver lasting economic benefits. These examples reflect USTDA's broader role within the US government. We work closely with the Department of State, Energy, and Commerce, as well as my colleagues here, to align America's national security and commercial and foreign policy objectives. By bringing together project preparation, financing, and partnerships, we help reduce supply chain dependencies, strengthen America's industrial base, and importantly, expand opportunities for American companies in emerging markets.
Congress plays an indispensable role in this effort. We look forward to continuing our partnership with this committee to ensure that the United States has the coordinated tools, capital, and partnerships necessary to build resilient supply chains and reinforce America's leadership around the world. Thank you, I look forward to taking your questions.
Dan Petrie
Good morning, Chairman Mast, Ranking Member Meeks, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing and thank you for your long-standing support of Millennium Challenge Corporation. MCC was founded in 2004 with a single question in mind, and that is, in a transparent and time-limited way, how do we work with well-governed partners to unlock growth? Growth that is good for our partners and growth that is good for the United States. And we do this by building large infrastructure and advancing policy and institutional reforms that jump-start key areas of an economy.
In short, MCC lays the public sector foundation for private sector-led growth. And the agency's core tenets: selectivity, accountability, greater cost-sharing, increased self-reliance, are exactly what this moment calls for. This year, we're leveraging new authority from Congress to work in a wider set of countries. In recent months, our board of directors has selected five new partners across the Indo-Pacific and Western Hemisphere. We're excited to be back working closer to home in countries like Guatemala and Bolivia and Ecuador.
We're also leaning into certain sectors, such as securing our supply chains. The number one issue that we hear about in working with the private sector is that the surrounding operational and regulatory environment can make or break a deal. And this is what MCC does best. In Mozambique, for example, MCC is working to improve the roads in the Nacala transport corridor that's going to reduce the time and the cost of getting goods to the port where things like graphite are being shipped to the United States and processed for batteries in Louisiana. I know USTDA and DFC are engaged here as well, as we're always seeking to leverage each other's work.
And in this way, we can ensure American security and supply chains while also generating economic growth in the countries where we work. Zambia, for example, has not been the easiest place to work for US firms in recent years, in part because the regulatory environment isn't there. As part of MCC's compact, the Zambian parliament recently passed a few laws to address constraints in the agricultural sector. We're seeking to replicate that approach with critical minerals. Currently working with the Zambians to updating their mining cadastre, improve their minerals regulation commission, and pursue a policy that is going to make data more transparent and accessible, which builds confidence for investors.
The compact is also going to upgrade hundreds of kilometers of roads in the Lobito corridor. That's supporting the work that our sister agencies are doing there. So this is a complete package. Beyond critical minerals, we're also being much more intentional and strategic about engaging with the US private sector, trying to address barriers that they face. Given MCC's focus on addressing systemic constraints to economic growth, the agency is uniquely suited to be helpful here.
So why MCC, why now? I had the opportunity to travel to Mongolia in May, where we just wrapped up a water security compact. This wasn't digging a few wells because it is a nice thing to do. We built a first-of-its-kind advanced water purification plant utilizing American-manufactured tech from Florida that is set to increase the water supply in the capital Ulaanbaatar by up to 80%. This is a young democracy sandwiched between Russia and China that wants to partner with the United States.
Our project is not only generating local jobs, but setting the table for private investment. Mongolia has skin in the game too. They contributed $112 million to this as well as raised their water tariff by 40% to make MCC and the US government's investment sustainable. And despite the unique challenges of delivering large infrastructure in an environment like Mongolia, the project was completed on time and on budget. So this is the MCC model in action.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to your questions.
Speaker 7
Thank you for your testimonies. Ranking Member Meeks, would you like to give a statement?
Gregory Meeks
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. You know, the United States International Development Finance Corporation and the Millennium Challenge Corporation, as well as the US Trade and Development Agency, are important development tools. But unfortunately, the Trump administration's decimation of foreign assistance is doing long-term damage to the United States's ability to compete for critical minerals and diversify supply chains. USAID's democracy and governance programs once fought corrupt resource management abroad, and Prosper Africa opened doors for US investment in natural resources.
Gutting these programs doesn't save money, it simply cedes ground to China. Nothing has put greater focus on the need to diversify our supply chains and make them more resilient than Trump's disastrous trade war with China. When Beijing retaliated by imposing export controls on rare earths, shipments of rare earth magnets dropped by 74% to the United States, hamstringing our automakers and other industries.
We're all in agreement that building resilience in critical minerals supply chains and breaking China's chokehold on critical minerals is a national security imperative. But raw minerals won't fix this. China dominates processing, not just extraction, which is why the DFC must make processing a priority. Focusing on mineral extraction projects alone without resolving the rest of the pipeline will only send more profit to China. MCC and USTDA should be doing the same.
So I'm concerned, as I made clear throughout the DFC reauthorization, that DFC's development mandate is being lost. More effort at DFC being spent on upper-middle-income countries rather than developing countries that need it most. It is contrary to DFC's mission. The DFC was not created to serve Donald Trump and/or his family's credit line that advantages elites and brings no development benefit to those who need it. It is critical that we have transparency over DFC deals and oversight of US investments in critical minerals.
Resource extraction is fraught work. Without good governance, it can too easily lead to corruption and fails the very countries whose resources are being extracted. Every dollar of US assistance, whether through USTDA feasibility studies, MCC compacts, or DFC financing, must come with strong guardrails against corruption. That means ensuring that the President's family or any cabinet official cannot personally profit from taxpayer-funded assistance dollars. That should not be because it is not a gray area.
It is a clear conflict of interest and it undermines the standards America expects the rest of the world to follow. The United States helped set high standards globally and should not contribute to lowering them. The profiteering is especially galling given how much economic pain Americans are already absorbing as a result of this administration's disastrous foreign policies, whether we are talking about tariffs or Trump's war of choice in Iran. So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the staffing and resources they are devoting to the very real development challenges their agencies were created to address and how their work concurrently serves US foreign policy interests. And I yield back.
Brian Mast
Ranking Member yields back. We're going to alternate between left and right for questions. I'm going to begin with myself for some questions today. During my time as chairman and previous to this, I have worked to expose wasteful spending in anti-American projects funded under the previous administration, things that were just a waste of our dollars. My ranking member has said we've gutted foreign assistance.
We've gutted waste, fraud, and abuse, and waste being the most important thing that I think could have been done to say you're throwing away the taxpayer dollars in foreign countries, sometimes with foreign adversaries. The American people have to know to what benefit does that take place.
None is the answer when it's waste. I'm encouraged that under President Trump's leadership the State Department has turned a new page and is putting America's interests number one. The agencies here today have to do the same and I want to hear about how you've turned that page. So I would like to hear what specific changes has your agency made over the past year and a half to align its foreign investments. I'd begin with you Mr. Black.
Tell me about some of the things that you've rooted out and where you're doing it better compared to the stupidity of the past.
Ben Black
Thank you Chairman Mast. So as I was confirmed last October, we got reauthorized in December. Over the last six months we've rebuilt the entire pipeline to be bigger deals that move the needle for development and really growth for our friends and allies. What's really important there is large industrial projects. And so we've realigned in that direction to do fewer deals that bring more growth across the table and bring supply chains that are focused on getting America access to minerals that need to be processed as well as helping export US molecules both LNG and oil around the world as we are the largest producer.
Give me a country and an example.
Ben Black
So one of my favorite deals that we've done most recently is an investment in Brazil for heavy rare earths called Serra Verde. The end result of that is it has already been a financial success for the American people as it was sold but the most important thing is those heavy rare earths are 100% going to the United States for processing.
Brian Mast
So rare earths, creating a partner, successful something that we need. I was briefed before about one of the other DFC projects that was done in Brazil that I believe was bicycles. Is that accurate?
Ben Black
That's correct. It was a bike share project from 2023 that unfortunately is a zero on returns.
They did not.
Brian Mast
So you're doing rare earths something that we need, again previous administration let's do a bike share project in Brazil.
That is correct.
Brian Mast
Very good. Unfortunate not very good. It's not good. I'm glad you're turning the page. This is an example of the crap that we're gutting out of out of these entities and I'm glad to see that done.
I want you to give me another example. I was also briefed on apparently DFC decided to invest in Dunkin' Donuts. Where was that?
Ben Black
That was in Georgia, that would be Tbilisi, not Atlanta. It was an older project that predates this administration that was also a zero.
What happened to the Dunkin' Donuts?
Brian Mast
A lot of Americans love Dunkin' maybe the people like Starbucks or Krispy Kreme or something like that instead I don't know. But are you doing something better in Georgia? Have you replaced it with something else? Or else give me another example of somewhere else that you're working.
Ben Black
In the region we are. So the only deal that has crossed my desk and gone for approval in Central Asia being Kazakhstan is a very exciting deal in telecommunications.
As you know, dating back to the first Trump administration, it is our goal to bring Huawei and ZTE out of telecommunication networks worldwide. We are able, we were able to effectuate a rip and replace there with one of their largest telecommunications providers and put in Ericsson, one of the two international trusted providers the US government likes to work with. And that leads to further opportunities because I will tell you this: we will not invest in AI and technology in countries that run on Huawei and ZTE pipes. We will do it only with countries that have trusted vendors in place that protect American interests.
Gregory Meeks
Mr. Black, I'm glad that the DFC was reauthorized last year and has a runway to engage in important projects. But I have real concerns about the DFC losing its focus, as we discussed in my office, and I appreciate you being there and having that dialogue and conversation. But losing its focus on development and turn, and turning it into a personal piggy bank for the president. And I hope you can allay some of my concerns about that. So let me bring up: on February 4th, the DFC formally announced its interest in putting US taxpayer money into a tungsten mining project in Kazakhstan.
This is chronicled in the article titled "Trump Cut a Billion-Dollar Mining Deal, His Sons Stand to Profit." And Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter this article into the record.
No objection.
Gregory Meeks
Mr. Black, the article notes that following a September 2025 meeting between Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and the president of Kazakhstan, which President Trump joined by phone and where this deal was discussed, a business venture partially owned by President Trump's sons bought a 20% stake in a company directly connected to the Kazakhstan tungsten project. So Mr. Black, simple yes or no: do you know about this project's ties to the president and Secretary of Commerce's family before submitting the DFC's letters of interest into it?
Speaker 15
Ranking Member Meeks, we have to take a step back. This project that you're discussing...
Speaker 14
I just wanted to know whether you knew about, you know, this conversation before.
Ben Black
Member, this project LOI, the LOI, which is in the public sector a letter of interest, not even as, it's a non-binding interest, was in June 2025, a conference prior to my confirmation by all career, all career staff signed this LOI in July 2025.
Speaker 19
Black, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm just asking you: did you know about this conversation and the connections to the secretary and the president's family?
Ben Black
Sir, what I was trying to lay out is the DFC has a multi-pronged investment approach. It starts with careers. The LOI was in July of 2025.
Gregory Meeks
I understand. You don't have to explain that to me. I only have five minutes. I understand all of that. The question is simply: did you know about the phone calls or the connections with the president's sons and the secretary prior to submitting the letters of interest?
Because you submitted the letters of interest, right?
Ben Black
Sir, I was confirmed in October of 2025. The letter of interest was in July of 2025.
Speaker 13
So you did not submit the letters of interest, is that what you're telling me?
Speaker 24
All it is is if you didn't know, say you didn't know. And if you do know, say you know.
No, because either you did know or you don't know.
Speaker 21
Okay, then you say you didn't know. And I would take that as an answer, that you didn't know. I told you I'm not trying to accuse you of anything. If you did not know, then just simply say you did not know. But now that you do know that this project will directly benefit the President's and Secretary Luttnek's sons, I'm asking you, will you commit to not putting any US taxpayer dollars at stake for the project unless and until this clears the conflict of interest that is addressed?
Ben Black
Sir, every single investment that goes through the DFC follows a fulsome and rigorous process, including full ethics, know your customer, anti-money laundering...
Gregory Meeks
Sir, all you have to say is yes. Don't try to run out my time. If you are going to make sure, I'm asking you, because what we're going to do is we're going to hold you to what you say here. So I'm not, you know, I just want to know. You said you did not know, it was before you got it, before you were confirmed.
And so now that you do know, and this is now on record, the question is, will you not, you know, until this is cleared, we want to make sure that we hold you to that.
Ben Black
Every single investment will go through the rigorous process that includes ethics, know your customer, AML, and a four-pronged process.
Gregory Meeks
We're just going to repeat because we're going to do our oversight responsibilities here, and we're going to make sure that we hold you. You say you did not know before, you know now, you say you're going to make sure that ethics is upheld, and we're going to hold you to that. We're not going to just, we're looking at it and we'll hold you to that.
Speaker 26
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our distinguished leaders and panelists today. Let me ask you, I have a lot of questions, but five minutes, I'll ask one basic one. For years, I've been working on trying to get the DR Congo to end their horrific complicity and enabling of the Chinese Communist Party by sending cobalt that they extract through horrible means, child labor, 35 to 40,000 kids, there's no real protections for those miners. I've chaired six hearings on the abuse in those mines.
I've been to Goma myself. And cobalt, especially for European cars, EVs, is exploding. So the market is making the Chinese Communist Party huge amounts of money. I asked Tshisekedi, the President, please, if you're going to mine it, do it under standards that are humane and make sure it's processed, and that's the key word here, in a democracy-loving country or in your own country, but not in Xinjiang, where the Uyghurs are being subjected to genocide. They listened, and you know, hopefully they're going to do something.
But I have a bill that I've introduced repeatedly, now it's HR 2310. I did have a hearing in March of last year on this, and I'm going to do another one. But the bill is called the Cobalt Supply Chain Act. And the essence of it is a rebuttable presumption, like we did with the Uyghur Forced Labor Act, to say, okay, if you can prove that you're not using forced labor, then you can do it. But frankly, every Tesla I ever see now, and there's a lot of them, I know that the cobalt that's driving that Tesla was mined on the backs of children in DR Congo and in a forced labor situation for older people.
So I'm asking you please, if you would take this back. To me, this is like right in our face. Again, it's growing.
You know, I've asked Musk and others, what are you doing enabling this kind of exploitation? Again, if your supply chain is not tainted, that okay, you know, whether you like or dislike EVs, you know, that's a whole another issue. But when you talk about child labor, so I'm asking if you would take a look at the bill, see if you can support it. We got part of it passed by Ways and Means in the last Congress. My hope is that we could get it soon now.
Yes, there's all kinds of good things happening. The President's peace treaty was certainly good with Rwanda and DRC Congo. I thought that was an opening to finally get them out from under in promoting or sending all of this cobalt to Xinjiang for processing. So if you could speak to that, because to me, you know, and again, there's all kinds of other things where Africa is being fleeced by the Chinese Communist Party. But this is one that just jumps off the page and can be remedied rather quickly.
Yes, please.
Thomas Hardy
Sure. Thank you, Congressman Smith. Agree, it's grotesque what China's doing in the Congo. USTDA has been working in Southern Congo. I think we have a rigorous due diligence process to ensure that the work we're doing upholds the highest labor and environmental standards, and making sure as importantly that the off-take from that will be directed to the United States.
I think that for USTDA, that is a basic tenet of any investment we're going to make in critical infrastructure is looking at the labor situation, ensuring that we are excluding China from involvement in any form or fashion to make sure that the highest standards of labor can take are upheld in the critical mineral sector generally, but particularly in the Congo.
Speaker 26
Okay. If I could ask you to take a good look at the rebuttable presumption, because when we put that into the Uyghur Forced Labor Act, there was pushback with the previous administration, but he did sign it. And it does give us the ability to say, look, those products that are made with forced labor are inadmissible to the United States. And this ought to apply to cobalt. And then when you add on just how horrible it is, and you said grotesque, what they do, they meaning the Chinese Communist Party.
They have most of the mines. They've either bought them and they use this substandard labor practices, the sexual abuse of children. I heard we had at my hearing people who testified to that, that these kids are so vulnerable and they're so destitute and they're working in artisanal mines and they're also working obviously in the other mines. And they die or they get sick. They're not wearing apparatus that will keep the dust and other debris from their lungs.
And again, Xi Jinping is laughing his way to the bank as they make all of this money. Again, it's not as much that in terms of here, although there is a big market. I'm out of time. But in Europe, the EVs there are exploding in terms of how many are being bought, all on child labor and forced labor.
Mr. Keating.
William Keating
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Black, you said that you were, you know, your agency and yourself, you're involved in what you termed a rigorous review of all projects. Is that correct?
Ben Black
Currently, Congressman, we are reviewing all previous investments with the goal of being able to disseminate.
Speaker 34
So you're a part of that review now. You're there, so you're part of that now.
Speaker 31
Sir, review requires multiple things. We are No, I wanted to know about you. You're the only one here. So you're part of those rigorous reviews, obviously, right?
Evaluation process and audit requires a third party firm to No, I asked about you, sorry. I didn't ask about third parties. I just want to know about you. You're part of it, right?
You're the one that just told us it exists, you're in charge, so you're part of it. Am I asking for review and evaluation exercise? Yes, I am. Are you involved at all, or are you just one of those people hands off, you're not involved in anything? Sir, I'm not an accountant, so we are going to hire
No, no, but you're involved in this, correct? Yes, if I ask for Okay, thank you. God help us. All right, so you're involved in this.
So with Kaz Resources, the company that is deal with the Kazakhstan tungsten deal, you're aware of Kaz Resources, that's the company involved, right? That's pretty perfunctory. Well actually, sir, we have, so I think you're conflating two different processes. Evaluation exercise, which involves accountants and valuation firms of all previous investments going back 55 years, on top of which we're talking about a four-pronged investment process which we go through for every single investment. Oh no, you can detail that all you want.
I'm just here, Kaz Resources, you've heard of them, right? You personally have heard about them. What is the problem with this lately? Yesterday was ridiculous. Today it continues with this administration.
It's like the people in charge don't know anything. I mean, come on. So you're in charge and you know about Kaz, you've heard the name Kaz Resources, right? Have you heard it? Only in the context of people sending media reports in the
All right, so you don't know, you this rigorous reform, the company that's involved in this you don't know, only through media resources? That's really the kind of leadership you bring to this. Let me ask you another question. Have you heard of Dominiere Securities? Sir, I don't think you're listening.
Sir, I don't think you're listening. I don't think you're responding. I absolutely am responding, sir. Yeah, I don't think you're responding to what I'm asking. So listen, I don't want to be argumentative every time.
Listen to this. Sir, we have a multi-part investment process. Answer this yes or no. You're just giving me a lot of crap. Listen.
You heard about the major company involved in this big deal with Kazakhstan, and all you've done is you told me you heard about it through media sources. Have you heard of Dominiere Securities? Sir, it has not reached the level of the investment process where Sir, Dominiere Service, answer the question. Have you heard of Dominiere Securities?
In what context? Sir. Have you heard the name? Sir. Have you heard the name?
Don't sir me to death. Have you heard the name? Be respectful and I'll try and be respectful in response. Sir, you're not allowing me to respond. No, you're giving me offshoots of my direct answer.
Look it, Dominiere Securities is owned in part, major part, by Donald Trump's sons. You didn't know that? Sir, when an LOI is issued by career staff in the first part of a four You said this is rigorous. Now listen, I have one minute left.
Don't talk my time to death. You said it was rigorous. You said you only heard about Kaz Resources, you told this committee under oath, that you told them that you've only heard of Kaz Resources through media accounts. You haven't heard of Dominiere Securities, a Trump-known investor in this. And did you know that according to federal security federal filings, that both Cantor Fitzgerald, run by the Lutnicks, and Dominiere Securities, partly owned by the Trumps, have already earned fees for their work?
They're both paid for their services already, helping executives involved in this series of transaction to raise new capital. So when you're evaluating these things, you're not even looking at any function of how the company in front of you raise their capital. You're not even looking at that? Yes or no?
Ben Black
That's not remotely true. It requires a KYC process. If you had allowed me to speak, I would have explained to you that there's a multi-part-
Sir, there's a multi-part-
You're the man at the wheel.
Representative Wilson.
Speaker 30
continue to put up with this non-answers from this administration on conflict of interest issues.
Joe Wilson
Thank you very much Chairman Mass for your leadership and indeed we appreciate all of you being here today. Additionally, Mr. Black, I encourage the Development Finance Corporation to operate in Syria, which at this stage could benefit from a trade not aid model and technical assistance which the DFC could capable provide. I it's particularly important to me because I was honored in November 2024 to be condemned personally by the Assad dictatorship as an enemy of the state. And then three weeks later, Assad fled to Moscow. I was grateful eight months later to be in Assad's office in Damascus with the new president Ahmad Al-Shara with Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Ambassador Tom Barrack as President Donald Trump additionally has welcomed President Al-Shara to the Oval Office, the first Syrian leader in 250 years.
And indeed President Donald Trump is leading the world in his efforts to give Syria a chance. What is the status of the DFC in any effort to assist the people of Syria?
Ben Black
Thank you Congressman. So at the DFC, we are very much looking forward to getting involved with Syria. Two things that one of which and we work with Ambassador Barrack closely for these purposes. One, we have gotten a reacknowledgment of the investment agreement with Syria because statutorily that is required for us to be able to do that. We are also waiting for judgment by USTR on their investment and labor practices being okay for the u- for the DFC to be able to invest.
Speaker 37
Well indeed I wish you to again to proceed. I was really happy that Senator Lindsey Graham on Wednesday, last Wednesday, met with President Al-Shara. In the past the Senator had been really skeptical about the new government in Syria, but following that meeting he said to join with President Trump give Syria a chance and what opportunity you can help provide in honor of now the late Senator Lindsey Graham. And Mr. Petri, the middle corridor is a critical area of interest in furthering President Trump's Central Asia agenda and the diversification diversification of the critical mineral supply chain change the chain. The illegitimate Georgian Dream government is an anti-American entity promoting both radical Iranian Islamist and pro-war criminal agendas.
In fact, elections were rigged in Georgia. With that the tremendous people of the Republic of Georgia remain staunchly pro-American. Millennium Challenge is unique as its merit-based. How does the Millennium Challenge Corporation maintain its current compacts with the Republic of Georgia while ensuring that the Putinist government does not divert the assistance solely for the illegitimate government away from the people of the Republic of Georgia?
Dan Petrie
Thank you, Congressman, for that question. MCC is not currently working in Georgia. We have worked there in the past and have had successful programs there in the past. As we do with all countries, we would be eager to engage with them and understand what the concerns and opportunities are. We do take those broader governance challenges very seriously.
And so as we are considering, as our board of directors is considering new countries that might be selected in a given year, those are factors that we'd be looking closely at.
Speaker 37
Well, Millennium Challenge indeed is so helpful for different countries. Can you tell the American people need to know what some of the initiatives you have?
Dan Petrie
Absolutely. We are, under the Trump administration, focusing in a couple of areas. The first is critical minerals here today. Of course, we're taking a 360-degree view of this, as I mentioned, in Zambia, in Mozambique, Sierra Leone, and others. Individual deals and transactions are important, of course, but it's going to be about setting the foundation and working systemically if we're really going to win this race.
And so for US firms, that means clarity around the legal framework, streamlined permitting and licensing, access to quality data so that you could make informed business decisions. It's also about the operating environment. It's not just access to a particular mine or a site. You need water, you need roads, you need power, you need ports. And so this is what MCC does best.
We're not working everywhere, but where we are working, we go big and we focus on this unique combination of both infrastructure and policy reform.
Mr. Ogles.
Andrew Ogles
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Black, I was here and watching with great interest some of the back and forth about the Kazakhstan deal that the ranking member and Representative Keating were asking about earlier. I'm going to take you at your word that you're not really aware of the details of those deals other than what's been publicly reported. But I guess just from a values perspective, do you think that in these types of deals that I as a member of Congress should be able to personally benefit from those types of deals? Just from your values perspective.
Speaker 25
I'm not asking about the legislative body. I'm asking about your personal values in your role. Do you think that I should be able to benefit from the types of deals that we talked about here in Kazakhstan?
Ben Black
Sir, I believe that asset allocation and taxpayer funds and their allocation is a fiduciary duty. Fiduciary duty is, by the way, in the private sector, much more stringent.
Andrew Ogles
This is not a complicated, I'm not trying, this is not a gotcha question. This is a do you think it's wrong for members of Congress to benefit from public actions? Is this the kind of stuff you gave when people were asking you about whether you wanted to serve in this role? I think it's pretty straightforward. Anybody else can give a yes or no answer at the table whether you think it's wrong?
Your silence speaks volumes, guys. It's an easy yes. It's wrong. It shouldn't happen. Should Secretary Rubio be able to benefit from a deal like the one in Kazakhstan, Mr. Black?
Speaker 25
Guided hopefully by some values where public figures shouldn't benefit off of public projects. It's not hard to say.
Speaker 41
Sir, an ethics overview is involved in this. It requires any opportunity going through.
Speaker 25
Okay, I'm clearly not going to get an answer, so I'm going to reclaim my time.
I wanted to give you an opportunity there. I think regardless of how important these projects are, taxpayers should not be paying to make members of Congress, to make members of the administration, to make the president or their family richer, nor should taxpayer funding be used to fuel the corruption of any other partner country. So I'll pivot here, Mr. Black, to in December, the DFC announced a letter of interest for an equity investment between Gecamines, the DRC's state-owned mining company, and another commodities group. The DFC later announced that 100,000 tons of minerals have been shipped to the US through this joint venture. A report last year showed that Gecamines was under investigation for allegedly embezzling more than $300 million.
Earlier audits found hundreds of millions in unaccounted for tax prepayments, loans, and mining revenues that never reached the national treasury. So hopefully you can say that's wrong in terms of values. And then I want to know what guardrails you have in place to ensure DFC investments are not furthering this type of corruption.
Ben Black
Sir, I've been trying to explain process, and can we take a step back here for a second? There is a four-part process. If anything is a letter of interest, that solely means that career staff have screened a project and announced interest. It has not gone to the underwriting committee. It has not had know your customer, which I've been trying to talk about, which is KYC and anti-money laundering checks, which are part of any ethics check.
It then needs to go to investment committee. Only after that is the deal even eligible to be approved to be brought to the board of directors for approval. So frankly, when you bring up letters of interest, it is so early on in the process, there are no funds that have been disbursed at any point. Ethics checks have not even happened yet. It is so premature and early that it is not reflective of any form of commitment from the DFC.
Andrew Ogles
I think what you're seeing from this committee is a concern, though, that based on what has happened in other places and where President Trump and his family have lined their pockets with hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars in taxpayer-related projects at the Department of Defense, through mining deals, through cryptocurrency schemes. There's a reason these questions are coming forward, and I would hope that in all forms of corruption with a local government partner or this administration, you all continue to have some moral conviction to say doing so is wrong. And the fact that no one could say it publicly is deeply concerning to me. But I hope that we can work to find a way forward together, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for each of you. What do you consider to be the most significant issues, to include things like infrastructure gaps, corruption, conflict, and ongoing security issues, that are preventing African critical mineral producers from expanding their processing and refining capabilities, and what are you doing to solve these problems, promote investment by US companies, and address the national security concerns that these represent?
Thomas Hardy
USTDA's taken a fairly substantial lean, directed by the White House and the president, to be focused on critical minerals. When I look across Southern Africa, we're doing things differently than we've ever done before. For USTDA, that includes now doing drilling, test drills to determine the substrates of the critical minerals capacity, doing testing here in the United States of those critical minerals so local processing development can be designed using USTDA funds and led by American companies and American investors. So I think that is a significant change for USTDA, which is making that bigger investment to ensure that these critical minerals are coming to the United States, and we're working, everything we do is designed for offtake into the United States.
Speaker 17
That sounds fine. I mean, that does explain kind of what you're trying to do to address some of these issues. But the reason I ask this is because every time I go to Africa, I travel over there a lot, I hear about the Lobito Corridor all the time and you guys have mentioned it in your statements. And but what is actually being done, you know, so far? Where are we at with a project like the Lobito Corridor?
And my question is, is like, we have a lot of great ideas and we have great plans, but the problem is, is there are such basic issues that exist in a lot of these countries and DRC in particular with regards to corruption and the ongoing conflict and the security issues and stuff there that, you know, what are we doing to overcome that? Because we can talk about it all day long, but I don't see much being done. I don't see a lot of progress being made. And I just, I mean, I know that that's, you know, you'd need help from a lot of outside organizations and other parts of the US government to establish, you know, to get rid of the corruption and establish some of these security to overcome some of these security issues. But are we doing things to actually to make this happen?
Are we just talking about what we'd like to do?
Thomas Hardy
For USTDA, we're working extremely close with the Congolese private sector. And we've found having good partners with the Congolese private sector has been a positive way to ensure that we have the right partners.
Speaker 17
Has any work been done yet? Has anything happened with the Lobito Corridor yet?
Thomas Hardy
For USTDA, we're on the front lines on the early project development side. For USTDA, that includes designing power projects, transmission networks into these power plants, as well as beginning the testing of critical minerals to design the processing so we can increase local processing capacity to get those products into the United States market more.
Dan Petrie
On Lobito, MCC is working in Zambia. We are working on two fronts. One is the infrastructure side, the other is the policy and institutional reform. We've seen some success in the agricultural sector by getting Zambia to change some laws that's going to open it up for more private sector investment. That's going to be good for US companies and others.
We're going to replicate that in the mining sector. We're improving their mining cadastre as well as their minerals regulation commission and finally making data more accessible and transparent, which of course builds confidence for investors. We're looking at hundreds of kilometers of roads that are going to be upgraded in and around the broader USG investments, including the railway and others. We're not currently working in the DRC, although...
Is that because of the security situation?
Dan Petrie
Currently they don't qualify for an MCC compact, which has kind of a rigorous standard that we want to uphold. That said, countries like to make progress on MCC's scorecard to qualify for MCC assistance. We call this the MCC effect. Without spending a penny of US taxpayer resources, countries are changing laws to become eligible for MCC. DRC has a unit set up within their government where they are trying to make progress in this regard.
So we do engage with the government, although we are not working there currently.
Speaker 17
But I mean, obviously the DRC is critical to the Lobito Corridor. It doesn't happen without the DRC, right? So yeah, I think we have a lot to address there. With that, I yield back.
Jonathan Jackson
Thank you so much, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Mast. Thank you, Ranking Member Meeks.
And this is a question I would have to the, first of all, to Mr. Black. Mr. Black, you state that in this era of increasing global competition, President Trump and Congress equipped our agency to be a leading force for restoring U.S. economic security. Since its reauthorization, DFC has rebuilt our pipeline to more than 340 deals. I am just concerned about Mr. Trump's executive order 10998, where he states that he's put in increased visa restrictions on many of these African countries. As you know, there are 54 African countries, and what we saw during the event of the World Cup is that 12 African countries had complete travel bans, another 14 had partial travel bans.
26, almost 50% of the African countries have travel bans, visas, and restrictions where people couldn't even come over to play a game and could not bring their family members to watch soccer. I've always maintained that Africa's most valuable resource is above the ground, not beneath the ground. It's the people, and having access to the people will further ensure that we can have access to some of their bounty and their resources. Would you be in support of us rescinding that executive order so that we can reduce, ease the amount of travel bans and restrictions so that we can communicate and invest in those African countries?
Ben Black
Sir, I'm an asset allocator at the DFC. Visas, travel, and domestic policy are not part of my purview.
Jonathan Jackson
Okay, I understand. You don't want to make this a political issue, but it is politics. The asset allocation, people are a valuable asset, a human capital, human assets. How do we get the assets to the people? You can't go into a country and extract something from underneath the ground if we can't talk to the people above the ground.
If children can't play soccer together, you know in Zambia as well, where people have to pay 5, 10,000, 15,000 dollars. I met with people from the Global Health Institutes and other places, they can't even have their international meetings in the United States because they cannot convene their workers from the continent of Africa to come to the United States because of travel bans and visas. The second question I would probably have is to you, our Deputy Secretary, Mr. Hardy, is that we have seen in Zambia, for example, USTDA has awarded funding to Metalix, an African Zambian limited subsidiary of Texas-based Commodities Inc., to support a feasibility study for expanding facility that currently extracts and processes copper and cobalt. I've spoken with the manufacturer, with the excavators of copper in the country of Zambia, and they cannot get to the United States because they have to spend in excess of 10 to 15,000 dollars per employee that needs to come over here to have a meeting. And so for six people, without buying the ticket, without having any lodging, they have to post a bond anywhere between 60 and 90,000 dollars.
Would you be in favor of us rescinding that travel ban restriction that the administration has placed?
Speaker 28
I am not aware that that has become a problem for Zambian companies to be working with the United States.
I have not heard that that exists.
Jonathan Jackson
It exists. You can look in the New York Times, you can go to anything. I would hope that your agency would apprise you and brief you a little bit better than that. China has 60 diplomatic posts in Africa. The United States has 56 diplomatic posts in Africa.
The U.S. has 41 African vacancies currently. China has 274 diplomatic posts globally, while the United States has 271. This is an alarming trend. So as we continue to talk about critical resources, we also have to talk about diplomatic resources. Out of the 195 total U.S. ambassador positions, the U.S. has 107 vacancies.
So I am all about the extraction, all about the strengthening of the global supply chain, but unfortunately at the same time we are weakening our diplomatic corps. And so those of you that are asset allocators, investors, and you're doing great work on the critical minerals, I am concerned about how we are conceding and retreating from our one-two punch, both of being economically feasible, but also being diplomatically resourceful and resilient.
And it all comes back to not being able to watch nations enjoy a soccer match together. If we can't play together, how are we going to work together, how are we going to invest together? Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Ms. Kim.
Young Kim
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for joining us today. You may know last month we passed the Dominance Act, and that was a bipartisan legislation that empowers the United States to work with our allies to build alternative critical mineral sourcing, processing, refining capacity to power our economy. And one of the key provisions in that bill was for the United States State Department to negotiate the energy security pacts with our partner countries, and that would establish country-specific objectives to support key energy and mineral investments abroad. And the idea also is to provide a one-stop shop to align our diplomatic, financing, and technical tools from USTDA, DFC, EXIM, and Commerce to strengthen our allied critical mineral supply chains and promote the energy security.
So the first question is to you, Mr. Hardy. What are some of the gaps in interagency coordination and how might models like the energy security pacts in the Dominance Act improve interagency coordination?
Thomas Hardy
Thank you, Chairwoman Kim. I think for USTDA as an agency, we have long looked to our partnership with the State Department, and our statute requires that we follow the foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State. So for any activity that the US Trade and Development Agency takes on, we coordinate directly with the regional bureau or the functional bureau to ensure that any investment we're making in infrastructure in the Indo-Pacific, around the world, is aligned with the Secretary of State's vision, the President's vision for a robust foreign policy agenda. With respect to the Dominance Act, I'll let State weigh on on that because that's their direction on creating the energy compacts. But I think what you can see here today is three agencies along with EXIM that work very well together and have the tools that complement each other and the staffing resources that make us in a great position to provide an alternative to the Chinese model of engagement.
And I think that the Dominance Act and other engagements that are designed to bring us together are the ways that we're going to continue to strengthen our collective efforts to beat back the Chinese Communist Party.
Young Kim
Thank you. That's exactly the main objective of the Dominance Act. I mean, each agencies are doing a great job, but we wanted to make sure that there was that one agency that we can go to and our allies and partners can really depend on our coordinated efforts. So I'm really glad that we are moving that along and hopefully the Senate will also pass it quickly, you know. But Mr. Black, I want to talk to you and first commend your leadership at DFC and your focus on advancing President Trump's vision that energy security is national security.
And I'm continuing to always explore what more ways that we can help to expand DFC's flexibility, including its ability to operate in Venezuela.
I introduced the FLEETS NOW Act that will be focused on rebuilding America's shipbuilding capacity with our allies. And in that bill, there is a provision explicitly allowing for DFC to work in Venezuela as well as to invest in strategic ports and port infrastructure to facilitate economic growth. So, Mr. Black, can you talk about what role that Congress can continue to play in giving DFC and its partner agencies the durability to support allies and investors making long-term commitments to energy projects?
Ben Black
Representative Kim, thank you for your support and thank you for all you're doing there. I think you're doing a lot of important work and look, at the DFC, we fundamentally believe in how important ports internationally are and the more work we can do there, the better and we appreciate the other support and opening up. Look, we have our work cut out for us after our reauthorization and I think rebuilding the pipeline was just the first step to doing that. We are now in a position to execute more on more on these deals and we are continuing to do so and I welcome working with you, your colleagues and your offices in laying out priorities and other projects that we can work on that helps advance the President's agenda and serves the American people.
So recently, DFC announced 1.5 billion investment in the Indo-Pacific. I believe that is the single largest investment in DFC history, right? The Philippines also has a plan, the Paksilica hub in New Clark City that would create 4,000-acre economic security zone for AI, semiconductor packaging and critical mineral processing. So what would the DFC's role actually look like in that projects and what else in the Indo-Pacific do you see more opportunities for DFC to invest?
Ben Black
Congresswoman, there are a host of different projects in the region that are great opportunities. As I've said to your other colleagues, look, when some deals are in their early stages, first it is the vetting process and we talk regularly with the State Department as well as the Paksilica team and building out opportunities and really getting into the details of where investments are important. We find that it's in the nitty-gritty, in the documents and in the financing and the numbers where we do our best work. So we kind of pause before we get to the headlines because we want to make sure everything works and runs properly.
Gabe Amo
Representative Amo. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here. From roads to communications infrastructure to critical mineral supply chains, development funding supports American businesses and promotes American values while uplifting developing countries. At least that's what it's supposed to do. Unfortunately, under the Trump administration, just because something should be happening doesn't mean that it is happening.
I'm growing increasingly alarmed that under your leadership in particular, Mr. Black, that there's a push to make DFC operate more like a sovereign wealth fund than the development program that it's supposed to be. It appears that much of DFC's efforts are focused on projects in upper and middle-income countries rather than in developing countries that need them the most. I'm also worried that you don't really have a clear plan or strategy behind the projects that you're operating. Earlier, Chairman Mast asked you what projects you are most proud of and you mentioned the Serra Verde project. This project will pour millions of taxpayer dollars to support nickel and cobalt production in Brazil.
I agree that it's essential that we protect the production of cobalt, but I don't believe that you're thinking of the entire picture. Mr. Black, do you know where this cobalt will be processed?
Speaker 43
No, no, I asked you a question, sir. We don't got to take a step back. I need you to answer my question. Where is it processed?
Where is the cobalt processed?
Cobalt is not a heavy rare earth, sir.
So where?
Sir, cobalt is not a heavy rare earth, sir.
What's the answer?
Speaker 43
I... I... If you don't know, I got... I got it for you. It's China.
So are you aware that China has a near monopoly on processing cobalt? Sir... Yes or no? Sir, cobalt is not a heavy rare earth.
Speaker 49
Are you aware that China has a near monopoly on processing cobalt? Answer my question.
Your question is a little confusing.
Speaker 47
The question's straightforward. Are you aware, yes or no? It's okay if it's no.
Speaker 48
Cobalt is not a heavy rare earth, sir. Verde is a heavy rare earth mine.
Speaker 43
Mr. Black, you don't want to answer questions, I'm going to tell you facts. China has 95% of the world's refined commercial-grade cobalt chemical processing capacity. So if you're looking at the entire picture of the cobalt supply chain, something that you are very proud of, it seems like, the natural question is where is the cobalt being refined? So, knowing these facts, won't these projects, ultimately, this project in particular, result in the US taxpayer subsidizing Chinese refiners?
Ben Black
Sir, you're talking about cobalt in a project that is heavy rare earths. Cobalt is not a heavy rare earth.
Speaker 43
Sir, look, it seems like you don't want to answer questions or deal with the facts. Earlier you said that you would not invest in AI projects that have Chinese components, and yet you said your greatest project is one that will subsidize Chinese refiners. This goes back to a question of competence. Nothing in this hearing has made me think that you know all of the details of what's happening in the DFC and what needs to be done to protect US interests. You've also repeatedly denied any knowledge of the many conflict of interest issues that we have raised, from the Trump family to the Lutnicks in the DFC.
You're spending millions of dollars in taxpayer programs with taxpayer dollars without thought to the full supply chain of critical minerals. And along the way, you've cited career staff, the process, rather than your knowledge of what's going on. So the fact of the matter is, I'm hoping that you will turn things around. DFC is essential. That's why I'm here.
That's why my colleagues have so vigorously engaged. It's got to focus on its development mandate and taking a look at the full picture to improving lives of all Americans, not just the President and his family. And throughout your time here, you have not made it clear that you are standing for the values of this country, that no one should be benefiting, and certainly not in the Oval Office, not along the Cabinet, and not in the halls of Congress from the investments from DFC. So I hope that that's some place that you focus. And with that, I yield back.
Brian Mast
Thank you, Mr. Amo. I think you missed the explanation that what you were asking about doesn't exist in the mine you were asking about, but Mr. Huizenga is recognized.
Bill Huizenga
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to note I'm looking forward to my colleague leading the charge to expand processing here in the United States, especially if he has any contacts within the EPA so we can get these things permitted. That's been a major problem with why the United States has become so overly dependent on others in our supply chain. And I understand that that's exactly what this administration is trying to do. And once again, we see our colleagues throw bombs and leave the room.
And they don't actually want to know answers. I don't know, Mr. Black, if you want to take a second, have anything that you want to address on what diatribe you just heard.
Ben Black
Thank you very much, Congressman. Look, I'm very proud of the work the whole building has been doing. What I would say is, look, I've always said that we have a dual mandate.
It is serving US strategic interests and development. And what is development but creating growth? And you know just on the fact side 80% of the deals we've approved to date are in low income or lower income countries. So I'm not really sure about the facts that were being spewed at me but people can say what they like.
Bill Huizenga
Hey people are inventing a lot of things these days as they are trying to score political points. But you know I actually happen to be the chair of the South and Central Asia subcommittee. It's India to Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and all the stans including Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, place where a number of of of agreements have been struck. I also happen to be a part of the Congressional Strategic Advisory Group for the DFC. Also the vice chair of the Financial Services Committee where we deal with all the sanctions and we deal with jurisdiction on international development and finance agencies.
So I've got a fairly high level of interest in what you all are doing and I just want to commend you for what you are doing. I'm going to I'm going to jump to my area of responsibility with Kazakhstan and I want to talk about the recent announced proposed partnership to modernize Kazakhstan's telecommunications infrastructure by transitioning major networks to trusted vendors strengthening secure digital infrastructure. The announcement has highlighted the strategic importance of the Trans-Caspian Corridor and the role trusted telecommunications networks play in supporting economic growth, critical mineral supply chains and regional connectivity. So again Mr. Black how does the proposed investment fit into the administration's broader strategy to compete with China in Central Asia?
Ben Black
Thank you Representative. So I think telecommunications are so incredibly important here because I view them as a gating item. You know one of the most frequent questions I get asked around the world is will you invest in AI data centers here? And some of those countries you know I have to ask first do you have a power or energy source? Sometimes the answer's no which makes it very testy.
Then there's do you have a partner because we're not going to invest billions of dollars and just hope that a partner appears. It has to be tied up ahead of time. And then finally the question is what does your telecommunications depend on? Because we're not going to put a marvel of American innovation which is our AI tech stack overseas built on Chinese rails. So the fact of the matter is US telecom and trusted vendors is absolutely vital.
Bill Huizenga
And that was going to be kind of my follow-up and I'm going to change that a little bit but how do you evaluate whether those those projects reduce reliance on high-risk vendors? How do you how do you measure that?
Ben Black
Let's just straight up we approach them and we look at these telecom networks and we say what are you running on and can we finance a rip and replace? And it's also a great test of the willingness of a government.
Bill Huizenga
Well I was just going to ask about their willingness. What are you seeing as a willingness to do so?
Ben Black
I'm very pleased to say there is increased willingness. I think and then we want to lean in particularly in the Western Hemisphere to make sure that there are not Chinese rails.
Bill Huizenga
Kazakhstan's been pretty clear that they're willing to, with a neighbor of China, Mongolia, and Russia, they are very much interested in talking to the United States, aren't they?
That is absolutely true.
Bill Huizenga
Okay. I've got just moments here and maybe what we can do is transition this into some written responses, that would be helpful. But I wanted to know if our new objective is to build resilient supply chains, should Congress continue evaluating our foreign assistance agencies primarily by dollars obligated and projects, or should we instead evaluate them by what I would think are, you know, measuring items such as private capital mobilization, export growth, trusted supply chains established, reductions in strategic dependence on China and those kinds of things? So if the chair will allow maybe a quick, very brief answer from each of you would be helpful.
Speaker 59
Sir, what you listed is definitely things and metrics that we like to look at and firmly agree with you.
Thomas Hardy
Congressman Huizenga, USTDA has a robust monitoring and evaluation program. For every dollar we invest of our appropriated dollars, we've generated over $200 in US exports. Since the agency's inception in 1992, we've generated $127 billion in US exports to emerging markets around the world. I think those are all designed to open markets but also create job creation here in the United States. And that is how we measure ourselves and that is what we report to Congress as our measurement, not the dollars out the door.
Dan Petrie
With MCC, we're not just measuring outputs, we're measuring outcomes. And every single one of our projects is independently evaluated, including going back years after the fact and assessing whether we actually delivered on what we said we would. That information is actually then made public, the good, the bad, and the ugly, so that we can learn. American taxpayers understand they're getting the bang for their buck. So this informs the measuring, informs every single aspect of MCC's work.
Appreciate it. Yield back.
Mr. Castro.
Joaquin Castro
Thank you, gentlemen, for your testimony today. Mr. Black, I had a question for you. Section 1444 of the BUILD Act requires the DFC to publish detailed project-level information on DFC's programs. During last year's reauthorization of DFC, I authored a provision that strengthened this transparency requirement to also require the publication of project-level performance metrics and anticipated and assessed impact of DFC projects. As of now, that requirement seems to only be met for DFC's technical assistance programming, not for its broader portfolio.
At a time when the DFC has more resources than ever and is asking for even more, I believe that this is unacceptable. So I wanted to ask you, what is your timeline for bringing DFC into full compliance with Section 1444 and will you commit to public consultations with the development community on how that data gets published?
Ben Black
Representative, thank you for your question. So currently, I think what you're referring to in part is foreignassistance.gov, to which I explained there is only a portion of DFC data that applies to that. As I said in my opening statement, I am engaging in an entire valuation process of all DFC investments, past, present, and that will hopefully include future, and we plan to fulsomely put that out there to see returns to the American taxpayer across the entire existence of the DFC by administration.
Joaquin Castro
I guess my question is, are you committing to full transparency and to compliance with that provision?
Ben Black
Sir, we are in compliance with that provision. You're talking about foreignassistance.gov, to which I explained there is only a portion of DFC data that applies to that.
Joaquin Castro
Okay, well let me ask, will you commit to consulting publicly with the development community on the format and content of that data before you finalize it?
Ben Black
Sir, we are working with best-in-class valuation firms and working with those who can assess and look at our numbers so that we can give that transparency to the American people.
Joaquin Castro
All right, the reauthorization also included a requirement that DFC developed a new, quote-unquote, impact quotient to assess the effectiveness of its programs. What's the status of this requirement in the law, and will you have a public comment period as the first Trump administration allowed when establishing the first impact quotient tool?
Speaker 58
Sir, I will have to refer you to the Office of Development Policy and get back to you there.
Joaquin Castro
In the reauthorization, Congress deliberately capped DFC's high-income country exposure at 10% of your total contingent liability and 25% of any project's cost. These limits exist because DFC's statutory purpose is to mobilize private capital into frontier markets where it would not otherwise go, not to do safe deals in wealthy countries that the private sector can finance or otherwise could finance on its own. Legislation I authored, included in the DFC's reauthorization, requires your annual report to include private capital mobilization data, anticipated and actual amounts, investor types, and instruments used. Today, DFC reports neither a country income breakdown of its deal flow nor private capital mobilization data below regional aggregates, which means Congress cannot tell whether you are crowding private investors in or crowding them out. And so my question on that is, will you commit to reporting deal flow by country income category and project-level private capital mobilization data at least semi-annually so Congress can verify DFC is staying inside the guardrails that we just recently set?
Ben Black
Sir, we provide a lot of that data already. We follow all the strictures of our reauthorization. As our pipeline comes to fruition and deals get to the point of congressional notification, all those details do come to Congress and we put it forward. I agree very much, we don't want to do deals where we crowd out private capital. We exist to do deals all over the world where private capital cannot meet the mark.
If we're doing something in which private capital cannot enter, then we're not serving our purposes.
Joaquin Castro
All right, I have one more question and we may have to take the answer for the record. Last year's reauthorization of DFC included language I authored to strengthen the position of the Chief Development Officer, including by clarifying its position, integrating the role into the CEO's reporting structure. I authored the provision because I was concerned about the DFC's new emphasis on national security priorities, which I felt would come at the expense of its development mandate. I wanted to ensure that there was a senior institutional voice at DFC responsible for its development mandate. I'm concerned that in your testimony you've made repeated references to economic statecraft and strategic competition, but few references to the DFC's development mandate or the Chief Development Officer's role.
So my question is, what is the status of the Chief Development Officer position? Have you implemented the changes required in the law? Have you appointed an individual to fill this role?
Ben Black
Representative, we do both the dual mandate on both development, which is really growth, as well as economic statecraft to further the cause.
Ben Black
Currently, we have just hired a new independent accountability mechanism head and we are currently interviewing for the Chief Development Officer.
When do you think you'll have somebody hired?
Representative Issa.
Darrell Issa
Thank you.
Mr. Hardy, is Brazil currently a country you're allowed to invest in with your study programs?
Thomas Hardy
It is, and we have been working directly with Brazil as they look at small modular reactor deployment.
And that's a good thing.
That's a great thing.
Darrell Issa
Now, in your tenure, how many times has Brazil been in and out of that threshold?
Thomas Hardy
Brazil has long been a priority market for us. It's gone up and down as far as the opportunities that exist, but I think as we look at the Brazilian market, we're looking at working with the private sector and developers who are wanting to make investments to support local economic development, but ultimately open up markets for the sale of US goods and services.
Darrell Issa
One thing that Congress didn't give in the latest round of reauthorization, Mr. Black has the ability to work in developed nations at a 10% particularly when in fact development and or strategic interest apply. You don't enjoy that same capability of even if a country comes above a threshold, you have to stop any further development. Isn't that true?
Thomas Hardy
That is correct, and it's a significant hindrance. I think it falls into three different buckets. One is small island economies. You look across the Pacific Island regions, these countries are small, have huge development restrictions, but they're high-income countries. Likewise, to your point on critical minerals, you look at Argentina is just below the threshold, is sitting on massive amounts of critical minerals that we're about ready to be excluded from working in because at some point in the coming year or two, it will tip into a high-income status, and without this ability, we're going to be off the playing field.
Darrell Issa
And so following up on that, technically, isn't China still fully eligible for your helping them develop?
Thomas Hardy
China is definitely in there. We are, our job is to take on the Chinese.
Darrell Issa
Our job is to take on the Chinese, but the Chinese technically, economically, on paper, qualify while many countries you should be operating in, you're prohibited from. Is that a short way to put one of the limitations that Congress should look at changing?
Darrell Issa
Mr. Black, would you say that it's fair that any place that you're looking at investing, you should have the arm of TDA helping making sure that that is an open, transparent, and properly run process?
I would absolutely welcome that.
Darrell Issa
Well, hopefully that's something that will come out of this hearing. I want to follow up, Mr. Black. You've taken a lot of heat and you've done very well, but let me just go right to the point on these allegations of third parties buying into investments. Are your processes sufficiently open and transparent that everyone, including Mr. Soros, might in fact jump onto what he thinks is a good investment because they see a process that is going on that is public?
Speaker 65
I think we have best-in-class processes. It includes know your customer, anti-money laundering. It's a multi-step, multi-pronged...
Darrell Issa
So it's fair to say that whether you're Warren Buffett or somebody with a four-letter last name they keep using, that in fact, the chicken and egg, what's coming first is your recognition that these are projects that deserve public-private dual investment. These are vetted projects, and anyone is able to look and buy into those projects. So in fact, any claim of a nefarious, even if it does include a relative of a relative, is equally open to my Democrats' friends' friends, right?
Ben Black
Sir, I think that's not only correct, but on top of which, we keep talking about processes that haven't gotten to the key ethics, know your customer, and everything else process on all our reviews.
So if someone wants to talk about something that's only hit the very front end of the funnel, it doesn't speak to the very fulsome and rigorous approach and process we've created. That is correct.
Darrell Issa
Well, I want to thank you both for what you've done there. I also want to thank you for the work in Kazakhstan. Having Kazakhstan in a very short period of time have to get on a phone and call China if you want China to know what you're doing rather than they already knowing it through the backdoor Huawei will certainly be an improvement. Ms. Petri, I've got one question for you. In round dollars, since you've been there, how much wrong, fraudulent, if you will, how much money have you found that the previous administration had spent that in fact you're either clawing back or at least stopping pouring in?
Dan Petrie
We've looked carefully across our portfolio. Our portfolio has evolved over the last year. Last August, our board of directors did step away from 12 programs.
And totaling how much?
About 1.5 billion dollars.
Speaker 52
So you found 1.5 billion from the previous administration that you had to shut down, and they're worried about whether in an open, transparent world some third party might invest in a good investment when in fact the public-private investment is what the DFC is responsible for doing. I want to thank you. I want to thank you for cleaning up Millennium Challenge. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Sydney Kamlager-Dove
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we are here today to discuss the critical role that international development plays in advancing American interests and promoting global stability. It has now been over a year since the President illegally dismantled and shuttered USAID. For decades, USAID served as a cornerstone of US foreign policy, helping protect global health, counter violent extremism, strengthen democratic institutions, promote stable markets for American businesses, and improve education, economic development, and healthcare outcomes around the world. These investments not only saved lives abroad but also enhanced US national security, expanded economic opportunities, and reinforced America's standing as a trusted global partner.
Since USAID was illegally closed, the United States has faced significant setbacks in how we engage on the international stage. Critical development programs have been disrupted, longstanding partnerships have been weakened, and strategic competitors have sought to fill the vacuum left by America's retreat. These developments raise serious questions about the long-term consequences for US leadership, our national security, and our ability to respond to global challenges. Today's hearing is an opportunity to examine those consequences and to discuss how the United States can restore an effective, strategic, and accountable approach to international development. And you all represent corporations and agencies entrusted with the critical responsibility of operating and collaborating on an international scale.
Now, Mr. Black, we have heard a lot today about corruption and how the DFC is being misused by this administration. I believe the US International Development Finance Corporation must remain a cornerstone of American leadership on the global stage. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the DFC helped finance vaccine manufacturing, medical equipment production, and healthcare infrastructure, including expanding vaccine manufacturing capacity in regions such as Africa and India to improve access to life-saving vaccines.
Beyond the pandemic, the DFC has invested in roads, ports, power plants, telecommunications, and digital infrastructure across developing countries. Its investments in renewable energy and electricity access projects throughout sub-Saharan Africa have brought reliable power to communities and businesses, strengthening economic growth and improving quality of life. These efforts demonstrate how strategic American investment advances both our national interests and meaningful development outcomes for our friends and partners around the world. And when Congress passed the DFC reauthorization at the end of the year, we provided the agency with significant new authorities and resources to strengthen its dual mission of advancing US foreign policy priorities while delivering meaningful development impact. Throughout the reauthorization process and negotiations with the administration, several of my colleagues and I emphasized the importance of expanding DFC's investment portfolio in low-income countries, particularly through high-impact projects.
And with these new tools now in place, we expect the DFC to increase investments in sectors such as health and agriculture, where the agency has the potential to improve millions of lives while advancing American strategic interests. So the pushback you are hearing, Mr. Black, is because of the frustration we feel in not seeing that kind of work being done. What we are seeing, what we are reading, sounds like Trump and his friends using the DFC for personal enrichment, using the DFC as a personal finance tool, which it is not. Damning revelations about the billion-dollar Kazakhstan mining deal is just one example. And so you do have an obligation to share with us the kind of programs and projects that we want to continue to see.
We gave you additional authority because we believe in the corporation, and we want to see the benefits helping the American people and not friends and family of this president. We don't want a vetting process run by them, we do not want personal finance deals that help them only, we want to see a continuation of the work that we have supported over the years. These are tax-paying dollars and faith that we are putting in the work that is happening under your authority. Thank you for that time that you've given me additionally, Mr. Chair, and I yield back.
Representative Davidson.
Warren Davidson
Uh, thank you, Chairman, for highlighting this important issue. As chairman for National Security and Illicit Finance in the Financial Services Committee, we're dealing with some of the same things that we're talking about here today in the Foreign Affairs Committee. Uh, you know, when I look at, uh, US Trade Development Agency, when I look at, um, the Development Finance Corporation, two of the things that you all focus on are critical minerals with lending. And when you look at the Export-Import Bank, one of the real success stories under Chairman Jovanovic is Project Vault, which creates a strategic reserve for critical minerals. So maybe, uh, you know, could, could you guys, uh, talk a little bit about how, uh, DFC and, uh, USTDA operate together, uh, to, to maybe not duplicate efforts on critical minerals, but how does that interact with the, kind of things we're doing not just with EXIM, but with the, the Defense Production Act, because this administration's clearly made it a whole-of-government initiative to de-risk our supply chain.
Thomas Hardy
Thank you. The US Trade and Development Agency's first mover on infrastructure development. Congress gave us the task of supporting early-stage infrastructure, whether that's feasibility studies, piloting American technology, technical assistance, all of those early-stage investments necessary to feed into a DFC, to feed into EXIM. But I think what is unique about USTDA's statute is it looks at making sure that it's not just American taxpayers on the hook. We're looking at financial institutions globally.
How can we bring more financing into these projects to get them to the table and get them financed? But I think for USTDA, the basis of every project I take on and look to approve is, have my team met with the DFC? Have they met with EXIM? Is the scope of work we're funding meeting DFC's and EXIM's criteria? And if it is, what do we need to do to change that scope to make sure it is best suited to make it into the DFC and EXIM pipeline?
Ben Black
So I think it's an important thing when we talk about infrastructure and supply chains and critical minerals to first of all talk about how much President Trump is doing and through the White House to align all of us. You know, especially on critical minerals, David Copley is doing a phenomenal job here. We work very closely with him, his team, and with EXIM. Again, we cannot invest inside the United States. So there is a whole host of things where we make sure we're handing things off to the appropriate agency.
Warren Davidson
How does that complement the work of Defense Production Act, for example? I mean, we need the critical minerals, we have to get them processed. You look at the flow of the supply chain. How does your investment kind of mesh with the things that the rest of the administration's doing?
Speaker 66
The fact of the matter is we have to, what we do more often than not across all critical minerals deals internationally is make sure the off-take is coming to the United States, that the buyer is the Department of War.
Warren Davidson
Thank you. You know, Millennium Challenge has got your own unique role, but when you look at de-risking the supply chain, how has that changed under President Trump's leadership? You mentioned when Mr. Issa was questioning you that we have to reprioritize 1.2 billion dollars worth of projects. And I think that's kind of the thing Secretary Rubio really did well by reorienting things that even USAID was doing. It's like, yeah, we're going to do the things that make sense, but it's a crazy idea apparently to some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that America's resources should advance America's interest instead of some other ideology.
How's that relate to what Millennium Challenge is doing in de-risking supply chain?
Dan Petrie
We're taking a 360 view here because money is going to follow the best risk-adjusted return. And so what we hear is the operational and regulatory environment is key. That's MCC's role. We're trying to level the playing field for US firms, trusted allies, and others to help deliver on these critical minerals priorities. We have realigned some of our projects in part because these countries want it.
They know that it not only generates jobs locally, but there's opportunities for mutual prosperity here at home.
Warren Davidson
So we have developing economies in our own hemisphere that we have strong relationships with. And you know, if you look at nearshoring, things like that, is that something that fits across the spectrum for all three of you?
Absolutely.
Speaker 67
Certainly. One of my biggest priorities is revitalizing our Western Hemisphere program, including providing more staff resources and financial resources to make sure that we remain a leader in the region.
Thank you.
Warren Davidson
I would say most certainly. The Western Hemisphere is a huge focus.
President Trump has made it such, as has Secretary Rubio.
Speaker 64
Yeah, thank you. I think the National Security Strategy laid that out and hopefully it's a whole-of-government approach. Thank you for your service to our country. It's an honor to be part of it, both in Foreign Affairs and Financial Services.
You bet.
Representative Sherman.
Brad Sherman
Thank you. Mr. Petri, there are a number of countries that I think are important to be part of the Millennium Challenge Account. They meet the criteria for personal freedom, inflation, and governmental accountability. So maybe you can tell me whether we're likely first to include Armenia as a Millennium Challenge Account country.
Dan Petrie
Our Board of Directors every year considers a range of countries that we'd be working in. As you noted, we're looking at our scorecard and whether or not these countries...
Speaker 69
If you just... I've got limited time. You're just saying your board's looking at it. Can you convey to your board how important that is for American foreign policy and respond for the record as to why you haven't already included Armenia in the program?
We'd be happy to take a look at that.
Brad Sherman
Likewise, my father fought in the islands of the Pacific. We know how strategic they are. So where do we stand with the Solomon Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the other islands in the Pacific?
Dan Petrie
MCC has a growing presence within the Pacific. In August, our board selected Fiji and Tonga. That builds on our presence in Solomon Islands and Kiribati. And so there's a strong national security element to all that.
Where are you with Vanuatu?
Dan Petrie
We've worked in Vanuatu previously. I've met with their Prime Minister and others in recent months. They're very interested in partnering with MCC again.
Brad Sherman
Sounds like you're moving in the right direction, but you're not there. So please answer for the record where we stand with regard to all of the various countries in the Pacific. Mr. Chairman, I know earlier we had an exchange on the USAID. I'd like unanimous consent to enter the record an article from the New Yorker titled "The Human Cost of Doge's War on USAID."
Brad Sherman
And I would point out that it demonstrates that we've already had 700,000 deaths as a result of Elon Musk. And Mr. Chairman, I would urge you and others on the committee to co-sponsor our bill, the Evan Anzu Memorial Act, named for the first child killed by Elon Musk, and which requires a GAO report as to the number of deaths caused by the slashing of USAID.
Brad Sherman
Thank you for your comment, Mr. Chairman. Now, I've been involved with DFC since... for 30 years. Wrote a bill that got through the House that was the reauthorization bill, did not get through the Senate. Chaired the subcommittee that oversaw the DFC. The DFC is supposed to be part of our international development effort.
And yet it was announced that it would be in the oil tanker reinsurance business. Mr. Black, did you ever consider coming to Congress and saying, "We'd like authorization to do something that was wildly unthought of when we either appropriated money for you or wrote your reauthorization bill?"
Speaker 72
Not notify. Did you come to Congress and ask? Yeah, we all read the newspaper, so we know what you were doing. But did you ask for congressional authority to do something that was wildly outside what Congress envisioned you doing?
Ben Black
Congressman, our reinsurance project followed all the rules and strictures of our reauthorization, and including in that, we came and notified you guys.
Brad Sherman
Well, no notify, we subscribe to the Wall Street Journal, so we rarely see anything in your notification that isn't there already. I would ask to unanimous consent to put in the record the CRS report on the DFC, which says as to transparency, DFC has reduced the public information it provides, including removing or limiting details on its impact quotient, which is mandated by your reauthorization, not disclosing as much about board meetings, board-approved investments, and annual report. Public information on country-level development impact does not appear on your website despite a statutory requirement. Mr. Black, can we count on you to meet higher standards of disclosure?
Sir, we follow the highest standards. I would also say 80% of the investments under my tenure have been in lower and lower-middle-income countries, more than my predecessor, and those development impact quotients, 60% of them have been at the two very highest level of impact.
Ben Black
Sir, I asked you a question about disclosure and you responded by bragging about performance, which may or may not be true, but is certainly not relevant to my question. I believe my time is expired.
Representative Perry.
Scott Perry
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Black, I didn't intend to ask this, but there's a lot of interest in you and who invests in your projects, so I need to level set so I know exactly how all this works. So once the investment's made, is that, is there a public notice of that?
Speaker 79
Sir, there is. So the way the process works, can I take you through the process?
Speaker 76
Okay, so projects are screened. That is at staff level, career level. Before anything before that moves forward, then it goes to underwriting committee. At underwriting committee, things will move forward, you get your know-your-customer process, your ethics.
Ben Black
Can anybody outside be investing in the project during this portion of the operation?
Just to be very clear, there is no money dispersed whatsoever at these points. This is all a standard due diligence process.
I understand that, but can anybody outside of the government, some private citizen, can they invest during this period, somebody with insider information, so to speak?
Speaker 76
Just to be very clear, people can bring projects, but then it has to go through an ethics, KYC, and AML review, just like anything in the private sector. So if people had insider information, it would come up in that review, certainly more fulsome than anything that would appear in newspaper reports that are way too early on any process. Then it needs to go to investment committee, at which point it may or may not be approved, and this is all before anything is brought before the board as well as congressional notification. All of these steps must take place before anything can possibly be approved.
Ben Black
Is it advertised to the general public before congressional notification?
Not until, I'm sorry, the deal itself advertised?
Yeah, the project, the deal, the investment.
Ben Black
You wouldn't advertise, a lot of these are very sensitive deals, you would not.
I would imagine that. So, so just kind of working through the rest of the scenario, once it's advertised and outside investment can come in, do you preclude individuals, entities from investing based on their name or anything else?
They need to pass the ethics review.
Speaker 81
They need to pass the ethics review regardless of who they, so if my name was George Soros, if my name was Tom Steyer, if my name was Paul Pelosi, and I passed the ethics review, I could invest in that.
Speaker 76
If the ethics review said that there was no conflict and it is a properly run ethics and KYC review, yes.
Ben Black
And just out of curiosity, are the investors public?
If the ethics review said that there was no conflict and it is a properly run ethics and KYC review, yes.
Speaker 73
And just out of curiosity, are the investors publicly named once they invest? Is that a public record, public information?
Ben Black
It would depend. Again, a lot of these can be sensitive projects. The actual entities, yes, but just in the same way in the private sector, sometimes you will know exactly who it is in terms of public reporting, but KYC, yes, you must know the ultimate investor here.
Speaker 74
You must know and you must report that so everybody can know who's invested regardless of what side of the aisle they're on, so to speak.
The side of the aisle does not matter.
Speaker 76
The side of the aisle and your name doesn't matter as long as you pass the ethics review. It doesn't matter what your name is. Certain of my colleagues appear to want to preclude certain people from investing solely based on their name.
Speaker 76
Right, right. Look, I'm not for corruption on either side of the aisle, so I just want to make sure I understand completely what the process is here so that we're all level setting and we understand who's, you know. I find it fascinating as well that members of the committee, this committee, we, this committee authorizes the payment of hundreds if not thousands if not tens of thousands of NGOs, of NGOs that have been specifically used politically. But we can't talk about that. That never happened, right?
That never happened. It's an outrage and it's absurd. In what little time I have remaining regarding the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Mr. Petri, since 2004, the MCC has awarded 17 billion in grants across 46 countries. Some of them were terminated during the de jure reviews of the compacts and programs terminated. I'm wondering if they lapsed or if they were simply moved to somebody else so that we know that the projects, particularly with critical minerals, we know that the interest of this committee are being maintained or if those things just fell by the wayside and the investment was lost.
Were they lapsed and if so, did they go to somebody else like USTDA or somebody like that?
Speaker 75
The gentleman from Pennsylvania's time has expired and I recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Bell.
Bell
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member. While I may be new to the Foreign Affairs Committee, I've been on the House Oversight Committee since day one, so I want to bring those two committees together for a minute. My job on the Oversight Committee has been to crack down on the powerful people that for years have protected each other, looked the other way, and let Jeffrey Epstein operate because his access was useful to them. Survivors are still fighting today for the full truth, the real accountability, and for a government that doesn't keep protecting the people in his orbit. That fight isn't over and it shouldn't be optional for any committee.
Mr. Black, the Department of Justice released records that show you were part of that orbit, a business partnership with Epstein, a seat at your birthday, real estate advice, all items that you never disclosed.
And to be clear, as a former prosecutor, I do believe in due process. You haven't been accused of his crimes, but you are someone who benefited from proximity to him and said nothing about it, all the way past the point that you were confirmed to control a 205 billion dollar, 205 billion dollars in public money. Before coming to Congress, I spent years as a prosecutor, and in that job, you learn that the real question about someone entrusted with public money is never whether the paperwork looks clean, it's whether they'll tell the truth about who they're connected to and who benefits from that. Mr. Black, let's start simple. Prior to being confirmed by the Senate or to this committee, did you disclose your relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, yes or no?
Ben Black
Representative, I had no relationship with that individual. I'm here today in my capacity as the CEO of the DFC, and the House Foreign Affairs...
Bell
No, no, I'm going to reclaim my time. I'm going to reclaim my time, Mr. Black. Mr. Black, I know that you hear me and understand that this is my time. Did you disclose your shared investment with him, yes or no?
Ben Black
As I said, I had no relationship with that individual. I'm here in my capacity as the CEO of the DFC.
Yes or no will suffice.
I had no relationship with that individual.
Ben Black
Sir, I had no relationship with that individual. I'm here today in my capacity as CEO of the DFC.
Bell
Mr. Black, survivors have spent years asking one thing of this government: stop protecting the people in Epstein's orbit and start being honest about who they are. You had years of contact with him, and the first the public heard of it was from DOJ records, not from you. What do you say to survivors who hear that and wonder whether the same pattern of access, silence, and protection is still playing out today?
Ben Black
Sir, I had no relationship with that individual. You claiming things doesn't make it so. I'm here in my capacity as CEO of the DFC.
Sir, I had no relationship...
Speaker 86
Are the DOJ reports inaccurate?
Sir, I had no relationship with that individual.
Speaker 82
Sir, that's not the question that I asked. Are the DOJ records inaccurate?
Bell
Sir, I had no relationship with that individual.
That's great. That's great. You didn't have a relationship, you say. Were the DOJ records inaccurate?
Sir, I had no relationship with that individual.
Bell
You didn't disclose a real, years-long relationship with Epstein until the DOJ forced it into public view. Your job at DFC is to personally certify that deals aren't quietly benefiting people because of who they know. So why should this committee or the American people trust your certifications or anyone else's conflicts when you didn't disclose your own? Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 75
Thank you, and now I'll ask questions. And first of all, thank you for your service. You're an extraordinarily bright guy, and you have a lot of choices in life, and thank you for making the choice of service. So let's just shift to the critical minerals exchange or critical minerals supply chain issue. I've talked to, you have Hochstein in the White House, you have Burgum, you have Department of Energy, you have EXIM Bank, all of them are talking about a critical minerals exchange.
I assume that exchange will have to be international because as a geologist, deposits are where they are, not where we'd want them to be. I assume it's going to be government-backed. I assume that there's going to be some command and control structure to it. But follow the money.
I know you're deeply involved in it. What's your vision on setting up a critical minerals exchange that I would assume would function like a bank where deposits and withdrawals would be made? There would have to be some floor, I would assume, for critical minerals so you don't get whacked by Russia with palladium as an example. So what's your vision on going forward? And I've read the EO, and I'm sure you have too from the President.
What's your vision on the organizational structure and how it would look and operate for a critical minerals exchange? Mr. Black, if I could.
Ben Black
Representative, it's a great question. So, look, I defer heavily here to both David Copley as well as my good friend John Jovanovic at EXIM. The reality of the situation is I think what he's doing with Project Vault is enormously helpful here. I think when we talk about an exchange in particular, the really, really important thing is to remember how many critical minerals around the world are now being quoted in Chinese yuan or RMB. That is something we cannot allow to continue and happen.
So the value of an exchange, in my opinion, and we will help however we can, is to make sure that the dollar is dominant across commodities, especially critical minerals as it is in the petrodollar.
Thomas Hardy
I'll follow Ben's point of looking to EXIM Bank and David Copley for direction. I think our job is to make sure more critical minerals make it into market, make it into market that will be able to feed into the exchange when that's set up. That is USTDA's role as that early project preparation working in countries across Africa, across the Indo-Pacific to bring more critical minerals to market to feed the US economy and allied and partner countries' economies.
Speaker 75
Yeah, and I think we're all in agreement. It's just how to structure it because someone has to be in charge. You have multiple departments. You have multiple sub-agencies. You have multiple expenditures.
Who's in charge? Because there has to be some overall plan and whether that comes out of the czar out of the White House, but you also have personalities with secretaries that and so I just looking looking forward, you know, who's going to be in charge and who are they going to report to? I think that's from our point of view on Article One and to make sure we have oversight on it as we do with most agencies and make sure the structure at least has some transparency, oversight, and a clear mission so we can make sure we all work together on it. So on shifting really quickly to the Philippines. Working with the Department of War, they're concerned, very concerned about ammunition in the Pacific, the cellulose and nitros side of it.
We now have Subic Bay back, deepwater port seems to be appropriate to develop a relationship on some of our ammunition storage. I have some experience earlier in my career in Subic and at one time they had MAGTFs and a large ammunition storage facility that has largely atrophied away. Is there a project that is looking at restoring and rebuilding some of our ammunition storage and perhaps production facilities in the Philippines?
Thomas Hardy
I will start with we are not working obviously on the ammunition side, but we are working extensively at Subic on extending the dry dock for ship repairs, ship replacement, looking at rail links to bring critical minerals to market, and as importantly working extremely closely with INDOPACOM and Admiral Paparo to understand what INDOPACOM's interests are in frontline states in the region to ensure that we're investing in critical infrastructure projects that will support the economic development of Philippines but also play a strategic interest for the US national security.
Speaker 102
Again I thank all three of you for serving and I appreciate everything you do. With that I yield to the fine representative Mr. Moskowitz. From Illinois I believe.
Definitions.
Jared Moskowitz
Degrees. Degrees. Well thank you Mr. Chairman, appreciate the opportunity. I want to talk obviously I'll talk a little bit about critical minerals because a lot of people have talked about that because I actually think it's one of the most important things that we've not done a good job educating the American people on why it's important. And we continue to have hearings up here and a lot of people talk about it.
I had a subcommittee talking about it yesterday but we are not spending the time to engage the American public on why critical minerals are important, what China has done over the last several years under various administrations, where China currently is now and what advantage China has as a result of this. And not just in the mines but in the processing, right? I mean China like for the longest time I know we're starting to get our act together I don't think we're still doing enough in processing. China was like the only one who could even like process this stuff. They like you know like passed this down through like generations of people on how you actually refine and process it.
You know this is going to decide a lot of you know how much America can have independence from China because obviously anytime we want to do anything and China can flex on critical minerals it puts us a little bit in a box whether we want to admit it or not. And that was obviously China's design. I want to talk about supply chains. And I know it's a little bit out of your wheelhouse because you guys are focusing on doing stuff you know around the world. You know my background's a little unique.
I used to be emergency management director in the state of Florida. I ran the entire COVID operation for Governor DeSantis in the state so from when COVID started to you know just near the end. All the PPE, all the vaccine, all the testing ran the whole thing. And I can tell you between you know the trillions of dollars that were spent in the CARES Act and the trillions of dollars that were spent in the American Rescue Plan, one by Trump one by Biden, we've really done nothing to fix the supply chain issues that we saw during COVID. I'm not saying we've done absolutely nothing but I am saying and I want to hear your thoughts that if we had another COVID tomorrow that we wouldn't be in the same situation.
And that was we were solely dependent on China. The amount of stuff that I needed that I had to fly out of China that I couldn't buy here. And yes eventually plants came online and we were manufacturing stuff here but by the time that stuff came online we were really towards the tail end of that disaster. And so I just want to just put that question to you guys to see you know if you feel the same way I feel that you know after spending trillions of dollars collectively we're still kind of in that same situation from a supply chain issue on you know these important materials we would need God forbid we ever had another pandemic. Mr. Black I'll start with you.
Ben Black
Thank you Representative. So look domestic supply chain is not an area of my expertise. What I will say is there are a host of different areas across supply chains that we like to call specialty inputs now where we are very focused on advancing the pipeline and making investments. One of those is critical minerals. Another one is KPIs for pharmaceutical manufacturing which we think is incredibly incredibly important.
Speaker 88
Right, because the majority of that stuff now is manufactured of all places like in Wuhan.
Ben Black
We just want to make sure it is not manufactured solely in China and bring that out of there.
Jared Moskowitz
And that's okay, right? So obviously we'd like to onshore some of this manufacturing back to America, but it's also okay if it's being manufactured other places than China, so we don't have to rely on them in national emergencies. And so I do think that is in your, in your, in your wheelhouse, which is fixing supply chain issues on critical medical goods or things for national security items that if we, if we can't manufacture everything here, because we do have a global economy, where else can we manufacture that that isn't China?
Ben Black
I think that's a very important thing. I'd also add specialty chemicals and inputs is incredibly important for all manufacturing processes, so it is something we look at.
Mr. Hardy, same question to you.
Thomas Hardy
Likewise with Mr. Black, I wouldn't weigh in on the COVID side, but I think what USTDA's investing is that infrastructure connection so we're not relying on Chinese airports.
Jared Moskowitz
When you say you won't weigh in, do you think, I mean, you know enough about supply chains, right? Do you think we have fixed the supply chain issues we saw? I'm not blaming anyone, it's not about blame. The question is, have we solved the problem? Do you think we have fixed those supply chain issues?
Thomas Hardy
There remain to be challenges with our supply chains, and that's the role of us is to be investing in these infrastructures to make sure that our connections are better with our partners and allies around the world so we don't have the same issue that came up during COVID.
Dan Petrie
MCC's interested in leveling the playing field, and so this is about getting the basics right. We were talking about the Philippines earlier and what that looks like. On June 24th, our board of directors just approved a $60 million threshold program. That's not hard infrastructure, but the missing piece of the US government's engagement with the Philippines is around their Energy Regulatory Commission, which has a lot of red tape, it's sluggish, and it's hampering private investment. So these are the kinds of investments that these agencies, MCC makes, that is going to be setting us up for success with our supply chains moving forward.
Speaker 75
The member's time has expired, and I apologize, I referred to you from Illinois, I know that was a mistake, Florida, but you're not wearing a tie, so the apology was only half. So with that, I yield to the fine gentleman from Tennessee.
Speaker 94
I'm sorry that I had to follow Representative Moskowitz, that's why nobody wanted to follow Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock. You don't understand that reference, Google it. And Mr. Chairman, thank you, brother, and thank you for your service to our great country. When I walked in earlier, you got my name on the list, I heard one of y'all mention the Palau Island group, I believe. My daddy fought on Peleliu.
So, and then he went to Okinawa and fought there, and then went to China after the war and fought the communist, and now the Chinese communist are on Palau, or what I understand, and your conversations, you don't have to answer anything, I'm not answering anything, but I thought it's very, it's almost ironic, and now you all are telling me that we're, we're actually taking, not taking it back, but we're making sure that the communist Chinese don't have their footprint there, so I appreciate that, and you don't need to respond to that. But Mr. Black, what specific projects or programs are you all working on that will reduce our reliance on our adversaries? And I apologize that if these questions have been asked before, but as the 435th most powerful member of Congress, sometimes I get called on last. So the correct response to every one of my questions is, that's an incredibly intelligent question, sir, and then I'll crop that out and use that. So please go ahead, sir.
Ben Black
Representative, that's an incredibly intelligent question. I concur. Look, I think there's a number of ones across the board here. I've talked a bunch about telecom today and the investment we've done to do rip and replaces to make sure that international telecom rails are not being built on Huawei and ZTE. We're financing the use of both Ericsson and Nokia in many of these countries for their telecom networks.
Those are the two trusted vendors the United States works with, and so we're very pleased with that work. Additionally, we're trying to build out more LNG terminals worldwide to make sure that US LNG goes to different countries.
Speaker 94
Now I know what LNG stands for, but the chairman doesn't, so explain to tell me what those initials stand for.
Speaker 103
Liquefied natural gas, and we are the largest producer of it in the entire world. And so making sure that more people can buy it is great for Americans and the United States of America.
Thomas Hardy
All right. Mr. Hardy, how do you determine whether a project is going to be profitable US prior to investing taxpayer dollars?
USTDA's role is to be investing as the first mover on infrastructure projects, and what we do to make sure of that is we invest in projects where there's a US competitive advantage. What we've been talking about today is in the digital space, whether it's rip and replace, undersea fiber optic cables, where US companies are global leaders. Our job is to make sure that these are projects that are designed in a way that is teed up for the sale of American goods and services and make sure that the financing is done in a way that feeds into the DFC and EXIM bank's pipeline. Similar in critical minerals, in transportation, energy. Much like Ben mentioned, a significant part of our program has been in the LNG space, making sure our partners are able to buy American LNG, but likewise supporting the US nuclear energy in both large-scale AP1000s as well as the newer SMR technology.
Speaker 97
Do y'all have a strategy on to identify potential projects before China takes action?
Thomas Hardy
Our purpose is to take on China. We are looking at, if you look at what we're doing in the Indo-Pacific in the undersea fiber optic cable space, we are directly taking on Huawei and ZTE, pushing American technologies, like-minded technologies as an alternative, a trusted alternative with American solutions that our partners want and need. Whether that's working in the Pacific Islands on with Tuvalu on a cable, working directly with DFC on a inter-oceanic cable link system with Indonesia, USTDA is taking on head-on Huawei and their malign actions in the digital space.
Speaker 96
Do y'all have a, the US Trade and Development Agency, y'all have a way to help increase domestic production?
Thomas Hardy
For USTDA, everything we're doing is designed to increase, open up markets for exports, and with that comes American job creation here at home. So we do not invest in anything that does not have a direct linkage to increased American exports and US job creation.
Okay.
Thomas Hardy
If I, Congressman, if I could say, we've got a rigorous program in Palau beyond just a rip and replace, successful rip and replace, we're involved in the hospital relocation program project and airport expansion. We have a great partner with President Whipps and have a robust program in Palau and across the Pacific.
Speaker 95
Well, thank you, though. You're a Navy SEAL, so I'll just won't say anything unkind. You're over 15 seconds, that's 15 push-ups.
Speaker 100
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today. When former Development Finance Corporation CEO Scott Nathan came before our subcommittee in 2024, he did testify that securing more deals in the Western Hemisphere was a high priority for DFC, but explained that the income classification limitations prevented the agency from doing work with many countries in the region. With the passage of the DFC Modernization and Reauthorization Act last December, a subset of upper-middle-income countries have been identified as DFC investment priorities. DFC was also directed to continue to invest in advancing income countries if the project is certified as advancing national security or certain economic competitiveness objectives.
This presents an excellent opportunity for DFC to increase its investments in countries like Dominican Republic, El Salvador, countries key to nearshoring our advanced manufacturing supply chains. Increasing DFC investments in the Western Hemisphere is not just about development or competition with China. It's about making smart, long-term investments that deepen economic ties to help build more resilient local economies. Mr. Black, how have DFC's engagements in Latin American and Caribbean countries changed since the passage of DFC reauthorization in December?
Ben Black
Thank you, Representative. So I'm incredibly proud to serve the President who has finally redirected attention from the United States back to the Western Hemisphere and to all of these nations and countries. We are highly focused across the region. As we go through our new pipeline, close to 350 deals at 78 billion dollars plus, not saying all those deals get done, the greatest number of projects are in Argentina, Mexico, Brazil as the top three. All of the countries we're focused on, if I were to continue, would be India, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Morocco, Turkey, Papua New Guinea, Ukraine, and I said Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina is first.
But the fact of the matter is we are wholly geared towards being here. The first place I went upon being confirmed was to Bolivia for President Paz's inauguration. I have since been to Honduras and we have spoken to them about doing more in electrification there. We are highly, highly focused around the region. We have hired more and bolstered more for our Western Hemisphere and LatAm teams.
I am incredibly excited about the deal pipeline that will be coming to board both in September and in December that I know will have a lot more Latin America and there is going to be a lot, lot more to do there.
Speaker 100
You think those are deals that would not otherwise have been allowed before the changes were made to the DFC program?
Ben Black
That's most certainly the case. I'd also say, look, I think Latin America and especially the Caribbean suffer from a very unfortunate issue involving classification, the way and, you know, we incorporate by reference in the BUILD Act to how high-income countries are defined. Unfortunately, that means many island nations and Latin American countries, and Ajay Banga at the World Bank agrees this is an issue, are classified as high-income when they are very much not because they're reliant on tourism.
Speaker 100
Yep, I think we're in agreement on that. I represent Arizona, which has been the epicenter of semiconductor development here in the United States. I support bringing more of that supply chain to North America, including to Mexico and Latin America. I introduced the bipartisan legislation that directs DFC to invest in downstream and upstream parts of the semiconductor supply chain, things like critical mining, mineral mining and processing, testing and packaging, to the Western Hemisphere.
DFC projects will not only offer businesses a compelling economic alternative to China, but also boost economic prosperity across Latin America. Mr. Black, I'm encouraged by the fact that DFC is beginning to do the work in this direction as it relates to critical minerals, but given the speed at which this industry is advancing, more must be done to enhance semiconductor market integration across the region. Is DFC working on any projects currently focused on semiconductor fabrication and testing and packaging through that important program?
Speaker 104
Sir, I will have to look through our pipeline and please let us get back to you.
Speaker 100
I really appreciate that. In the law Congress passed to create the Millennium Challenge Corporation, there is language requiring women and girls to be considered when compacts are awarded and designed. It states, quote, in entering into a compact, the United States shall seek to ensure the government of the eligible country takes into account the local level perspectives of the rural and urban poor, including women, in the eligible country. Mr. Petri, can you assure us that women and girls are being consulted and supported through MCC compacts in accordance with the law?
Absolutely.
Speaker 100
Thank you. And as a follow-up, can you talk about the impact MCC has had recently on supporting women's economic security as a way for countries to build self-sufficiency?
Dan Petrie
Yeah, the MCC is laser-focused on driving economic growth, and that includes women as well as men. Women, of course, make up half of the economy in these populations. And so on every single project, we are interested in how MCC's impacts and investments are impacting both men and women and ensuring that we're advancing that appropriately.
Speaker 100
Okay. I'll follow up with, I'm running out of time, but I'll follow up with a letter requesting more detail on how the program is helping women in these countries. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Baird.
James Baird
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Meeks, for bringing this discussion to this committee. I also want to thank Mr. Black, Mr. Hardy, and Mr. Petri for testifying and bringing your perspective on these issues to us today, especially regarding the critical minerals and the energy supply chain. These are important matters for national security, and we must do our best to ensure the prosperity of American interests both here at home and abroad. Our overdependence on foreign nations and other nations to produce critical minerals has developed into a pressing blind spot regarding American national security. China controls over 90% of the critical minerals processing in the world.
You know, I learned not too long ago they also control 90% of the API, the active pharmaceutical ingredients, where it serves as the base for a lot of our medicines and so on. But anyway, and the African continent also retains significant reserves of rare earths and has been aggressively and forcibly, not forcibly, but forcefully invested by the Chinese Communist Party. And we must develop and decouple our reliance on adversarial nations for our critical minerals. And you've said that many times, so I appreciate that. So but as we look at our options, we have to think strategically.
We will not succeed if we are continually reacting. For example, our agriculture, and that's where I'm very interested, is also directly affected by the fallout from geopolitical tensions that generate and threaten global supply chains. China has become one of the larger global funders of agriculture research and development, and Chinese companies are acquiring, consolidating global agricultural companies to bolster their technology portfolio. And that's following a pattern we have seen with other areas of Chinese investment.
This is why and that is why the National Security Commission on Emerging Technology, NSCEB, warned us and told us it is critical for the United States to leverage biotechnology innovations to support our farmers and to support our food supply. So having laid all that background, I was trying to give you a break, I guess, but anyway, my first question really deals with the fact that American farmers are increasingly exposed to volatile fertilizer prices, as you well know, and supply chain disruption driven by foreign production concentration, geopolitical conflict, and export and import restrictions by China and other competitors. So I'd like to hear from each one of our panels members, so what what steps can Congress take to better empower the use of emerging technologies such as biotechnology for onshoring supply chains critical to our US food supply?
Ben Black
Thank you, Representative. So look, I can't speak to some of the domestic technologies that can be deployed. I know how important agriculture and farming is to President Trump and this administration, which is why we're trying to make sure across the board DFC is investing to secure important things like phosphate, fertilizer, urea, move it through the right channels to get here and keep the costs down for the American people, and we remain dedicated to that.
Thomas Hardy
Like USTDA, I will be headed to Morocco next week where we're concluding an agreement for ammonia production. I think that as we look at what this hearing's talking about, global supply chain dependence, breaking those global supply chain dependencies, it's investments like these that are providing other avenues to make sure our farmers have the access to fertilizer and support our US agricultural community.
Dan Petrie
Talked a bit about Zambia today, and there was a recent law that was passed because of MCC's compact in Zambia. They have ad hoc bans on their grain exports and their food reserve agency wasn't functioning the way it should. So US firms like Cargill and others had recently departed despite the opportunities there and to help secure supply chains. And so through MCC, we were able to work on those regulatory changes in Zambia. And so that's just one example of what is a much larger focus in the agricultural space.
James Baird
Well, thank you for those answers, and I agree with what you had to say, and I appreciate your efforts. But you know, I had a chance to go to Zambia here not too long ago, and it was impressive to me to see young people that they'd made a garden and a water tower so they could water the vegetables and so on. But you should have seen the pride in those young kids. And then we look out to the landscape, and the only thing that they're missing is water, which is critical, as you know. But anyway, so it's it's interesting to me that we could bring through the through the programs that you operate, bring the opportunity for those people, because there was plenty of land, it just needed someone to help them invest in it and make progress.
And so I've probably overrun my time, and I thank you and thank you witnesses for being here, and I yield back.
Brian Mast
Thank you, Mr. Baird. That has concluded the questioning for you all, so we thank each of you witnesses for your valuable testimony, and we thank the members for their questions, most of them. The members of the committee may have some additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing. Pursuant to the committee rules, all members may have five legislative days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject to length limitations, and without objection, this committee stands adjourned.