Congo's conflict minerals

An interesting provision was included in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation legislation that was passed in 2010. The provision created a new regulation that forces US companies to disclose to the SEC whether or not the minerals in the company's products came from Congo.

Why Congo?

This article states that the proceeds from the minerals sold in Congo (tin, tungsten, gold and tantalum which is used in electronics) are used to fund rebels that kill and rape. From the article:

Activists say that buying products that contain the minerals indirectly allows outlaw factions to continue a conflict characterized by its brutality, including the murder of civilians, violence against women and conscription of child soldiers.

I wonder if these same activists are discouraging non-US entities from buying American products since the US government also uses part of the proceeds to fund military operations that murder innocent men, women, and children. I doubt we'll see any such advice from these activists since these "activists" from the enough project receive hush money from the US government.

When the US government attempted to help people in East Congo they actually made things worse. The US backed the Congolese military in an operation to reduce the massive number of rapes in East Congo. The Congolese military, however, were as depraved as the rebels in looking at women as property. Rapes increased when the military entered the region.

Of course, the ever wise politicians in the US think they know who should be armed and who shouldn't. Senator Jim McDermott (D-WA) states:

"This legislation will help save thousands of lives and help protect countless women in the Democratic Republic of Congo by cutting off a key source of funding for armed groups."

Please tell me Jim: if cutting off funding to armed groups is the goal, how do we cut off funding to the largest armed group in the world?