contained inside the pods. Unless they are lanced at the right time, you cannot get opium out.

The Turks turned to this process when they resumed poppy cultivation after the 2-year ban on poppy growing in Turkey was lifted. There have been no leaks to the illicit market through this system. Mr. LONG. How can you be sure there have been no leaks? What is the proof?

Ms. FALCO. There haven't been any seizures of poppy straw. It wouldn't make any sense to divert poppy straw. It is just so enormously bulky compared to the amount of narcotic you finally get out. The Turks themselves have not experienced any problems. It hasn't turned up anywhere. We don't have any reports of problems.

LICIT OPIUM PRODUCTION

Mr. LONG. Of course that could beg the question.

How much licit opium is imported into this country each year from India?

Ms. FALCO. That I don't know. I think it is 100 and something tons. I don't know. We can get that for you. It is used primarily by Merck, Mallinchrodt and Penick to produce codeine.

[The information follows:]

In 1975, the United States imported 241 tons of opium from India. Of this amount, 48 tons constituted a special shipment, 60 percent of which the United State agreed to process into codeine and return to India.

In 1976, India supplied 210 tons. The 1977 figure will be in the area of 220 tons.

Mr. LONG. Could you comment on India's enforcement methods which would prevent the diversion of any licit production to illicit export to the United States?

Ms. FALCO. Their controls have been very effective. We have no indication of real leakage, although there have been a few reports that a little bit of it might be getting down to Sri Lanka. India has a great stake in maintaining their controls because of their legitimate market. Mr. LONG. Well, India is using the gum incision method?

Ms. FALCO. Yes, the traditional lancing method. Mr. Ernst has been posted in Delhi and can expand this point.

Mr. ERNST. Mr. Chairman, opium is grown in 26 districts in India. It is grown under a process that was started decades ago, during British days, where certain villages were allowed to engage in this. It was controlled by the government as a revenue source.

Through these villages, the government has a very strict family informant system, and if there is any indication that anyone in the village has leaked any gum, the whole village is denied its livelihood; in other words, denied its license to produce in the coming year. Mr. LONG. So you turn the whole village into informants. Ms. FALCO. Peer group pressure.

Mr. ERNST. The opium is taken to factories which are heavily guarded. I have visted them. I am satisfied, from my visits, that it is a genuine security measure, with a high degree of effectiveness. The only apparent possibility of any leak is at the farm level, where someone just might take a risk.

OPIUM PRODUCTION IN INDIA-PAKISTAN-AFGHANISTAN REGION

Mr. LONG. Most of the illicit opium grown in the India-PakistanAfghanistan region is consumed there and in Iran. What is Iran's financial commitment to drug suppression in this area, and since illicit drugs from this area do not directly affect the United States, why not divert bilateral assistance going to this area to the more immediate problem of the Latin American region?

Ms. FALCO. Iran is becoming increasingly more aware of the importance of dealing with its own narcotics problem. There is a very good possibility that Iran will commit several million dollars to the United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control for narcotics control programs in Afghanistan.

The second part of your question was whether we should eliminate our programs there in favor of Latin American programs. The money which we are spending in Latin America is being effectively used. We do not feel that we should simply just add more money for the sake of adding money. One of the important factors is to make sure that a government is going to be able to use the money that we provide effectively. The other more important point is that one of the reasons we now have a problem in Mexico is that when the Turks stopped growing poppies several years ago, drying up the major source of illicit supply, we didn't think ahead to where the next supply source would be.

We have every indication that as we begin to solve the Mexican problem, illicit producers in other countries, like Afghanistan and Pakistan will be able to fill that market, unless we begin to work now.

We have to think about this problem in long-range, multilateral terms. We cannot focus all our energies on just one country.

DRUG SUPPRESSION IN BURMA

Mr. LONG. In Burma it is impossible to extricate narcotics suppression efforts from the suppression of local political insurgency. By providing equipment which may easily be used by the military or the local police to carry on a war against political opposition aren't we becoming dangerously involved in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation?

Ms. FALCO. This is a very great concern of mine. It is something I am going to look into very carefully. I have been assured that every effort has been made to insure that equipment given to the Burmese Government has been used only against narcotics trafficking groups.

There are many different political groups in Burma. Some of them are not involved in the narcotics traffic, and some are. In fact, some groups are simply narcotics gangs, and do not have political supporters.

Mr. LONG. Do they allow the Drug Enforcement Agency into Burma?

Ms. FALCO. Yes. The Burmese allow them in but only for visits. DEA can go in any time they request. We do not have a permanent DEA officer in Burma. I am sure you know better than I that the Burmese have traditionally been somewhat isolationist.

Mr. LONG. How can they do their job if they are not allowed in there on a continuing basis?

Ms. FALCO. Apparently they are allowed to visit whenever they wish.

Mr. LONG. Go wherever they wish?

Ms. FALCO. No. Apparently there are certain areas they are not allowed to go to. This is a situation where we are giving bilateral assistance to a country which has been reluctant to take bilateral assistance from any country, for a program which they themselves run.

Mr. LONG. The reluctance of a country to accept bilateral assistance has never kept us in the past from forcing it on them.

Ms. FALCO. Apparently in this case the Burmese are willing and happy recipients. However, they feel it is their program and their problem.

PURCHASE OF ILLICIT OPIUM SEIZURES

Mr. LONG. To what extent have the major pharmaceutical firms of this country been involved in the purchase of seized illicit opium overseas?

Ms. FALCO. I can't give you the exact extent. I met with the representatives of several major companies when I was in Geneva, and they told me about purchases in Afghanistan and Egypt. They apparently feel that they are in need of more opium and that they can't get enough from India.

Apparently there have in the past been some shortages in the world supply of licit narcotic raw materials. They have gone to various countries and bought seized opium at very high prices.

Mr. LONG. What happens to the proceeds of such sales? Who gets the money?

Ms. FALCO. The governments, as I understand it.

Mr. LONG. Foreign governments?

Ms. FALCO. Yes, not our government.

JANUS

Mr. LONG. Could you explain the joint U.S.-Mexican program for the prosecution of drug traffickers referred to as JANUS?

Ms. FALCO. Perhaps I could defer to Mr. Dugstad.

Mr. DUGSTAD. It involves the exchange of information between two governments specifically regarding evidence on major heroin traffickers for prosecution in the country where the offender is arrested. Information obtained in the course of investigation in the United States and presented to judicial authorities in Mexico has resulted in 62 cases involving 300 citizens in the United States and more than 90 in Mexico. This is not our program per se. It is run by the Drug Enforcement Administration.

Ms. FALCO. We don't finance that, do we?

Mr. DUGSTAD. No; it is under the authority of the Department of Justice.

Mr. LONG. The results do affect your program, surely.

Mr. DUGSTAD. We are definitely supporting it, of course.

Ms. FALCO. We cooperate fully with DEA.

Mr. LONG. Will you explain to us just how well this works?

Mr. DUGSTAD. The reports we have from the Drug Enforcement Administration indicate there is an increasing degree of cooperation in this program, and increasingly they are finding particular cases, as far as working with the Mexican Government, to be successful in prosecution.

DEATH PENALTY IN SINGAPORE

Mr. LONG. Could you comment on the effect of the recently instituted death penalty for trafficking in illicit morphine or heroin in Singapore?

Mr. ERNST. All I can say is that the Government of Singapore has taken a very strong position with respect to drug trafficking, and has felt it necessary to impose such a severe penalty for trafficking. Reports indicate that it is having a deterrent effect on that very small island city, which was part of an important transit route from Burma to Thailand to Malaysia and out through Singapore to the rest of the world.

So, to the extent to which Singapore is denied to the traffickers moving opiates into the rest of the world, this is a very beneficial development.

Mr. LONG. How many people have been executed?

Mr. ERNST. I have not read of anyone having been executed, although I would like to check that and supply it for the record.

Mr. LONG. Since the question referred to the death penalty, I would think that would be relevant to the answer that I asked for.

Mr. ERNST. The extent to which it has been used?

Mr. LONG. Yes.

Ms. FALCO. We will supply that for the record.

Mr. LONG. I don't believe the death penalty does any good if it is not used.

Mr. ERNST. It is a relatively new law. The deterrent effectMr. LONG. If you would explain for the record how long it has been in effect and whether there have been any executions.

[The information follows:]

The law was passed in 1975. No one has as yet been put to death. Four defendants received mandatory death sentences under the law in 1976, and an additional 20 defendants await trial.

Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. LONG. Mr. Young?

DEA IN BURMA

Mr. YOUNG. You were asking Ms. Falco about the Burma situation and whether or not DEA officials were allowed in Burma, and she said yes, when they requested it. You asked if they were allowed to go anywhere they wanted, and she said no.

Ms. FALCO. That is what I understood.

Mr. YOUNG. Could you tell us where they are not allowed to go and why?

Mr. ERNST. Not only DEA officials, but officials in our Embassy are not allowed to go into parts of Burma which the Central Government of Burma does not control because it could not be responsible for their safety in those areas.

It just so happens it is in those areas where much of the opium is being grown.

Mr. YOUNG. Is that the only place we are not allowed to go, and the only reason?

Mr. ERNST. To my knowledge.

Ms. FALCO. That is all I have heard about. But again, I will look into that and give you a fuller answer.

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you.

[The information follows:]

The Government of Burma does not allow travel by any foreigners in areas where it cannot guarantee their safety. In the past, such foreigners have been kidnapped by insurgent bands in efforts to embarrass the Rangoon Government and obtain ransom money with which to finance their activities—including narcotics trafficking. Aside from security considerations, I am unaware of any other reasons for travel controls within Burma.

EFFECTIVENESS OF DRUG CONTROL EFFORT

Mr. ROYBAL. I would like to explore with you the entire picture with regard to Mexico, and perhaps also Burma a little, Pakistan, and Turkey.

Mexico is of prime importance because of its close proximity and also because testimony before another committee clearly indicated that the poppy grown in Mexico is financed by American sources.

Testimony we received was that farmers in Mexico are in a sense bought off, they are given money to grow the poppy, that American airplanes, with American pilots go to Mexico, pick the junk up and bring it back to the United States.

Our Department of Customs last year, for example, confiscated about 740,000 pounds of marihuana alone. They tell us that these traffickers of narcotics have sophisticated airplanes and that our planes do not match their capability consequently, we are unable to really apprehend them.

The picture painted to the committee was a very sad one. It in effect said that very little of the narcotics is actually confiscated, that 99.99 percent comes through.

Now, the Department of Customs has a search capability of only one-half of 1 percent of all the luggage, all the containers, and everything that comes through the United States. That means then that a tremendous flow of narcotics is in fact reaching the United States. Can you tell us whether or not these are rumors or fact?

Ms. FALCO. I was discussing the seizure rate earlier with Chairman Long. The rates I have seen are somewhat more optimistic than yours. They seize about 10 percent of what comes across the border. Even so, that is not a very good figure. We were discussing earlier the enor