U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–532 PDF 2006

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY II: LAW

ENFORCEMENT, PASSENGER SECURITY AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION ON CRUISE SHIPS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,

EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 7, 2006

Serial No. 109–154

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio

——— ———

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

DAVID MARIN, Staff Director

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL

RELATIONS

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

TOM LANTOS, California

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

LAWRENCE J. HALLORAN, Staff Director and Counsel

R. NICHOLAS PALARINO, Senior Policy Analyst

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk

ANDREW SU, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 7, 2006 .............................................................................. 1

Statement of:

Carver, Kendall, Phoenix, AZ; Son Michael Pham, Bellevue, WA; Deborah

Shaffer, Tucson, AZ; Janet Kelly, Cottonwood, AZ; Ira Leonard, Hamden, CT; and Brian Mulvaney, Miami, FL .................................................. 30

Carver, Kendall ......................................................................................... 30

Kelly, Janet ................................................................................................ 63

Leonard, Ira ............................................................................................... 69

Mulvaney, Brian ........................................................................................ 117

Pham, Son Michael ................................................................................... 49

Shaffer, Deborah ....................................................................................... 56

Mandigo, Charley, director, Fleet Security, Holland America Line; and

Captain William S. Wright, senior vice president, Marine Operations,

Royal Caribbean International, accompanied by James Fox, Northeastern University, the Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice .... 218

Mandigo, Charley ...................................................................................... 218

Wright, Captain William S. ...................................................................... 224

Rivkind, Brett, Rivkind Pedraza & Margulies, P.A.; Ronald J. Gorsline,

owner, Secure Ocean Service, LLC; and Lawrence W. Kaye, senior

partner, Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP ......................................................... 148

Gorsline, Ronald J. .................................................................................... 162

Kaye, Lawrence W. .................................................................................... 180

Rivkind, Brett ............................................................................................ 148

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Carver, Kendall, Phoenix, AZ, prepared statement of .................................. 34

Fox, James, Northeastern University, the Lipman Family Professor of

Criminal Justice, information concerning crime aboard cruise ships ...... 251

Gorsline, Ronald J., owner, Secure Ocean Service, LLC, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 166

Hastings, Hon. Alcee, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 27

Kaye, Lawrence W., senior partner, Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP , prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 183

Kelly, Janet, Cottonwood, AZ, prepared statement of ................................... 66

Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from the State

of Ohio:

Information concerning Royal Caribbean Cruises .................................. 244

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8

Leonard, Ira, Hamden, CT, prepared statement of ....................................... 72

Mulvaney, Brian, Miami, FL:

Photograph ................................................................................................. 146

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 119

Pham, Son Michael, Bellevue, WA, prepared statement of .......................... 52

Rivkind, Brett, Rivkind Pedraza & Margulies, P.A. ...................................... 151

Shaffer, Deborah, Tucson, AZ, prepared statement of .................................. 59

Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Connecticut:

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of Terry L. Dale ....................................................... 16

Responses to questions ............................................................................. 220

Wright, Captain William S., senior vice president, Marine Operations,

Royal Caribbean International, prepared statement of ............................. 227

(1)

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY II:

LAW ENFORCEMENT, PASSENGER SECURITY

AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION ON CRUISE

SHIPS

TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING

THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Shays, Davis, Duncan, Mica, Kucinich,

Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Lynch.

Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and counsel; R.

Nicholas Palarino, senior policy analyst; Robert A. Briggs, analyst;

Andrew Su, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa,

minority assistant clerk.

Mr. SHAYS. Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations hearing entitled, ‘‘International Maritime Security II: Law Enforcement, Passenger Security and Incident Investigation on Cruise Ships’’ is called to order.

Today, we continue our examination of the intricate web of treaties, laws, regulations, and industrial practices intended to protect

lives, rights, and property in the maritime realm. As new threats

against American citizens and American interests emerge in the

post-September 11th era, we ask how effectively that legal umbrella protects the lives, rights, and property of those traveling in

international waters.

As we will hear in testimony today, the answer too often depends

upon an unpredictable combination of facts, circumstance, and happenstance that may or may not mean the protections of U.S. laws

are available to those in peril on the sea. The fate of those gone

missing or the rights of those against whom a crime has been committed may be determined by the nationality of those involved, the

ship’s national registry, or its exact location at the time of the incident.

Good luck to passengers wishing to understand their rights at

sea. Even attorneys find it difficult to navigate the complex jurisdictional boundaries, statutory definitions, treaty provisions, maritime traditions, and fine-print liability disclaimers. Even when the

2

law is clear, the effective reach of U.S. authority depends on the

willingness and ability of cruise ship operators to make security a

visible priority, recognize and report incidents, preserve evidence,

and conduct thorough onboard investigations.

Once cast adrift from the familiar moorings of U.S. laws and law

enforcement, security personnel abroad these floating resorts become the only law to which passengers can look for help and protection. Are they trained and equipped to provide the security passengers have a right to expect? For those waiting back on shore,

any effort to determine what has happened to a friend or relative

can also face daunting legal and corporate hurdles. A business built

on the premise of pleasure-filled conveyance has little incentive to

inform third parties when the trip goes wrong. Time, distance, and

legal uncertainties work to keep worried survivors at arm’s length.

Some portray it as a stiff arm at bat, extended in the interest of

denying, delaying, or discounting information about the inherent

risks of sea travel.

Unlike shore-bound contracts for accommodation, the pact between cruise lines and their passengers should be read to include

a duty to preserve evidence and provide information about the fate

of those, however few, who have come to harm in isolated, unforgiving ocean environs.

After our previous hearing on these issues, the subcommittee requested information on reports of crimes and missing persons from

cruise ship operators. The information received so far suggests

cruise travel may be statistically safe in terms of the number of serious incidents reported by the total number of passengers carried

in any given year. But we look to our witnesses to put those numbers in context so the subcommittee and the traveling public can

make informed judgments about the relative security of an ocean

voyage.

Today, we will hear from three panels of witnesses: cruise passengers and family members, maritime security experts, and cruise

line operators. Welcome to all our witnesses. We look forward to

their testimony.

At this time the Chair would want to note that the chairman of

the full committee is in attendance, and we will call on him after

we call on the ranking member, Mr. Kucinich.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

3

4

5

Mr. KUCINICH. I want to thank the chairman.

Out of respect for the Chair being here, I would be happy to yield

to the Chair of the full committee.

Chairman TOM DAVIS. I will just be brief. Mr. Shays, thank you.

I want to thank Mr. Shays for holding this hearing. It is a continuation of the important focus on the security of American citizens wherever they are in the world.

This hearing is significant because cruises are an ever more popular vacation choice for American families, and ensuring traveler

safety should be a priority for all of us.

I am not an expert on the industry. I know there have been some

very high-profile incidents aboard cruise ships in recent months,

and I think if there is reason to believe safety and security are

being shortchanged, we need to understand that. We also need to

understand the notification procedures, which is one of the shortcomings we have. In spite of some of the good news—and some of

the good news is that this industry is built on customer service. I

have seen statistics showing that in 2005 approximately 55 percent

of all passengers were repeat guests. So a lot of people appear satisfied with their experience as well.

Now, this subcommittee has spent a lot of hours looking into the

industry, and I want to commend Chairman Shays and his staff for

these efforts. I think that sunshine is the best disinfectant. What

has emerged, we get a picture of an industry that is conscious of

its public images, its understanding that customer service is its

lifeblood. They are grasping the need to cooperate with a large

number of U.S. Government agencies in the performance of its

service.

The data do show, as the chairman noted in his remarks, that

cruise ships are relatively safe places to be, for the most part. According to FBI stats reported at the December subcommittee hearing, the FBI opened 305 cases of crime on the high seas over the

past 5 years, during which time there were 40 million cruise ship

passengers. If those numbers are right, that is pretty good odds of

a safe voyage, certainly a lot safer than a lot of counties and cities

across the country.

But I know one thing. One concern about these statistics is that

many crimes may not be reported, and I hope that is something

that this subcommittee is looking at as well.

Two thousand people are reported missing every day in the

United States. In contrast, over the past 2 years, the equivalent of

one person per one million passengers went missing on a cruise

ship, which is less than the national rate. A cruise ship is regulated by both the Federal and State governments, and criminal offenses on board ships, regardless of their nation of registry, are expressly subject to U.S. jurisdictions when committed by or against

an American.

Having said this, this is an industry that is not used to visible

consumer complaints, and as the industry continues to grow, they

will need to find a more uniform standardized security standard.

No loss of life or crime is ever acceptable, and I understand the

anger and the frustration of crime victims and their families and

loved ones having difficulty pulling information out. I hope that the

industry will address some of the issues that are highlighted today.

6

There are compelling questions to be asked, including how conflicts and overlaps between domestic law and international treaties

affect our ability to monitor and enforce criminal conduct at sea.

I look forward to working with the subcommittee to ensure the security of our citizens as they take cruises and we try to maintain

better reporting to loved ones and others who are having difficulty

getting information.

I want to thank Mr. Shays for his important oversight. Thank

you.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the chairman very much, and at this time

the Chair would recognize Mr. Kucinich and thank him for yielding

to the chairman.

Mr. KUCINICH. Of course.

Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to say that immediately

after my statement, I have to go to the floor of the House to enter

a statement in opposition to the PATRIOT Act authorization, and

then I will return.

Mr. SHAYS. I think I would like to keep you here. [Laughter.]

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon and thank you to the witnesses for appearing

today. I know it is extremely difficult for some of our panelists

today to relate the tragic experiences of their loved ones, but I hope

that your testimony will help us avoid future tragedies aboard

cruise ships. Each year, some 10 million passengers take trips

aboard the 300 large cruise ships that comprise the worldwide

cruise ship fleets. These trips generate tens of billions of dollars in

leisure spending, and more than half of these passengers embark

from North American ports.

Twelve companies account for the majority of cruise ship activity

in the United States, but two companies—Carnival Corp. and

Royal Caribbean—dominate the U.S. market. Carnival owns 79

ships and has a dozen more in the pipeline. Royal Caribbean has

19 ships. Most of these vessels sail under foreign flags and do not

have to comply with U.S. labor, environmental, and other regulations.

Many Americans embark on a cruise as a romantic honeymoon

or on a long-needed family vacation, hoping to travel to exotic destinations and enjoy the many amenities these cruise ships have to

offer. They are offered almost limitless amounts of food and entertainment. Alcohol is plentiful and easily accessible. It is truly a 24-

hour party atmosphere on board the ships. Yet instead of relaxing

and enjoying their vacation, this subcommittee has heard of a disturbing trend: a growing number of passengers disappearing while

on board these cruise ships, with little or no attempts to search

and rescue them by the ship’s crew and security officers.

At our December hearing, the subcommittee heard from Mrs.

Jennifer Hagel-Smith, the widow of George Smith, who went missing during their honeymoon voyage to the Mediterranean. Publicity

about their case has allowed numerous others to come forward and

relate their cruise ship horror stories. Recently, individuals affected

by cruise ship crimes formed the International Cruise Victims Organization as a support network and to give a voice to their cause.

What they want simply is the truth, and that is the same thing

that this congressional subcommittee wants. They and we want to

7

know that everything that could have possibly been done to help

their families to search and care for their loved ones was done by

the cruise companies. They want peace of mind and closure to the

terrible tragedies. But they cannot get a straight answer from

those companies.

According to data submitted to the subcommittee by the cruise

industry—and, you know, they are not officially required yet to be

reporting to law enforcement agencies—24 passengers have gone

missing aboard cruise ships in the past 3 years. This subcommittee

knows of at least 178 reports of sexual assaults, thefts, and hosts

of other crimes—not exactly the ‘‘Love Boat.’’

However, as the chairman has stated, the lack of statistical data

on the number of crimes and incidents aboard cruise ships which

was not disclosed until two congressional subcommittees demanded

them and the reliability of that data leads Congress to suspect that

the whole truth is not being told. We want to know the truth about

individual cases. We want to know the truth about the adequacy

of training of crew members and about the procedures used by security officers, and we want to know the truth about the general

conduct and screening of crew and security officers aboard these

ships.

Do these cruise companies care more about the safety of their

passengers or their bottom line? Is it more important to make sure

missing passengers are found or more urgent for the ship to reach

the next port?

It seems to me that the latter is more important for these cruise

ship lines. I hope today’s hearing will help answer some of those

questions.

I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that I am in

strong support of greater Federal regulation over the cruise line industry and, in particular, we need key requirements for reporting

incidents aboard cruise ships. There needs to be oversight on training, conduct, and conditions of crew workers and security officers

and accountability to passengers to report such incidents.

I want to thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you

for your leadership on this issue, and I hope that these hearings

will help cruise ship victims and their families understand what

went wrong and what happened aboard these ships. We should do

everything in our power to help them heal their wounds.

Again, thank you, and, again, thank you to the witnesses for

being here today.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich follows:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and

certainly I have expressed my great respect and admiration for you

many times in here, and I will say that again because I think you

are one of the finest chairmen that this Congress has, and I appreciate the fact that you are presiding over a very thorough look at

this.

I expressed my concern the last time we had a hearing about this

that we sometimes legislate based more on what is on the 24-hour

news channels than what we actually should be legislating on, and

it is unfortunate. I wish it was not this way. You know, there are

thousands of horrible, terrible tragedies happening to people every

day in this country. And can we prevent all those? I wish we could.

We cannot. Should we try to? We should, as much as we can.

I hope that I am a better Member of Congress now than I was

5 years ago, and I hope that I am fortunate enough to be here 5

years from now and better then than I am now, because everybody,

whatever their job is, if they lose the desire to improve and get better, it is sad for them and it is sad for the people for whom they

work. I hope the cruise line industry continually tries to do more

and better in regard to safety and security of its passengers.

Having said all that, I mentioned some of this the last time we

had this hearing. People are far, far safer on these cruise lines

than they are in any city or even in any small town in America.

The statistics that Chairman Davis mentioned, I mean, 10 million

passengers a year, 20 million passengers in a 2-year time period,

and there were 13 that went missing in that 2-year period, 6 or 7

a year. One alleged sexual assault per 100,000 passengers. You are

100 times more likely to be sexually assaulted in a city or town in

this country.

So, we need to keep these things in mind as we go through this.

Does that lessen what happened to the victims that have had bad

things happen to them on these cruise lines? No, it does not lessen

it. Those are terrible things and we all sympathize with that. But

if we overreact and overregulate, I mean, we could put so many

regulations and rules and red tape in effect that we make it where

only extremely wealthy people can take cruises. And I certainly do

not think we want to do that. I think in all these things we need

to have some balance, and I think that is what this hearing is trying to achieve.

And so I thank you very much for calling this hearing and for

letting me be here. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman very much.

At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Ruppersberger.

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for having

this hearing, the second hearing. Maritime security is a very complex issue. I am familiar with maritime security. I represent the

Port of Baltimore and also am co-Chair of the Port Security Caucus, and we are dealing with issues of port security, the Dubai

issues; more importantly, resources that we put into security.

I really did not get involved with this issue until we had the first

hearing, but I think it is a very important issue. And one of the

reasons it is an important issue is that we have many Americans

14

that like to go on cruises because cruises are fun, they are affordable. And I think that these hearings, even though I am sure the

industry does not like it, should be a wake-up call on looking at

your system, making sure that you are doing things the right way.

You have had a good situation, but if you do not re-evaluate and

make the decisions and the changes that are necessary for good security—and it is not always what you think. It is what is being perceived, and perception can hurt any industry.

Now, we discussed different issues in the last hearing. There

were questions that had been raised and questions that have not

been answered, what laws apply in what situations. The FBI and

the Coast Guard share the burden of enforcing maritime jurisdiction, but who takes the lead? Who is ultimately responsible? And

I guess we did not answer these questions in December. Hopefully

we can move forward and help the industry where we need to go,

because we do not need to overregulate, but we do not need to

underregulate either. We need to get that check, get that balance

so that the cruise industry can go forward and Americans can have

fun but feel safe.

One question I asked in the hearing was: Do cruise ship deadlines create a threat? Do stringent deadlines force ships to travel

into storms or unsafe places?

Just to give a personal story, my wife and I went on a cruise,

and probably will not go on another cruise. We were really knocked

out of bed because of bad conditions. I understand that happens.

But, when you have those situations, you wonder why you were put

in that situation and whether it could be avoided. Probably because

a ship has to get back to port where there are 3,000 people waiting.

How you solve that, that is up to the industry. But these are things

that occur occasionally.

I would be more concerned, though, not about a bad experience

but a life-and-death experience when it really is something serious.

How does the industry make a determination? Is it the captain’s

point of view? Do you have the proper radar? Are you told, like airline pilots, where to go and to avoid storms? Those type of issues.

Now, the International Council of Cruise Lines wrote following

up on my question about having deadlines and having to go to certain ports and keeping tight schedules. And I appreciate the letter

and acknowledge that the National Transportation Safety Board

upholds the cruise line practices as prudent. Still, the larger problem continues to be who is in charge, what is the system in place

to protect the citizens of our country. And our country, not only

within the port, within the U.S. jurisdiction, but as we know from

the previous hearing, problems that we had when you are in another country, how you are treated. It seems to me that once you

are on a cruise ship and you enter, you go on the cruise ship from

the United States of America, you should be looked after and protected all the way through that process.

Now, again, in fairness to the cruise ship industry, the Coast

Guard has said maritime travel is, arguably, among the safest

modes of transportation available. The International Council of

Cruise Lines has established safety standards, but who enforces

them? High standards are not the end of the story. We must continually work to improve.

15

It is critical that we solve this problem, establish rules, and procedures so all agencies involved in security can and know how they

are supposed to work together. And that is the only way we can

ensure ultimate safety when traveling in waters not of our own.

Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

I would just like to say for the witnesses, I appreciate your patience, but what I am hoping you are gaining from this is realizing

how you may want to respond, and if you do not go directly with

your written statement, that will be submitted in the record. But

it is important for you to hear the basic views of the Members.

I do want to say, just in regard to the statistics, that you probably need to divide by 52 weeks the 10 million, and you are probably coming up with a city of about 200,000. Even then the statistics appear to be still very impressive in the sense that not as big

a problem as in some of our urban areas, but we are probably talking about a year-long population of about 200,000, give or take.

At this time the Chair would recognize and thank Mr. Van

Hollen for his patience as well. You have the floor, sir.

Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you for holding these hearings, and I welcome all the witnesses and

look forward to your testimony. I hope these hearings will accomplish two things: First is to raise awareness in the American public

about what questions they need to ask and have answered as they

proceed on cruise ships and just be educated as to what rules apply

and what rules do not apply. And they need to understand that

when you board a cruise ship and leave the U.S. shores, you do not

necessarily carry with you the full protections of the American

laws. And, in fact, in some ways you are in charted legal waters.

Second, in addition to raising awareness, I hope we will be able

to identify those areas where there may be a need to take additional measures. No one wants to go overboard in terms of measures, but I think that it is important that we identify those areas

where it may be helpful. So if that comes out of these hearings, I

think they will have been a success. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding it.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his participation.

Let me ask unanimous consent that all members of the subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in the

record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that purpose,

and without objection, so ordered.

I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be permitted

to include their written statements in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the following be made

part of the hearing record: a written statement from Mr. Terry L.

Dale, president, Cruise Lines International Association, about the

cruise line industry and taking a vacation on a cruise ship; a letter

from Ms. Kathryn Sudeikis, president, American Society of Travel

Agents, encouraging its members to take a vacation aboard a cruise

ship. And without objection, so ordered. Without objection, the

written statement and the letter will be made part of the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Mr. SHAYS. Also, unanimous consent to insert a statement from

our colleague, Alcee Hastings of Florida’s 23rd District.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Alcee Hastings follows:]

27

28

29

30

Mr. SHAYS. And I would further just point out that we have the

International Cruise Victims Association, which is a nonprofit organization supporting advocacy, an organization of cruise victims and

their families, and some of these members are with us today, and

we just acknowledge their presence as well.

As I think the panelists know, we swear in all our witnesses. I

failed to put under oath only one Member in my years as chairman,

and that was the Senator from West Virginia. I chickened out. But

everyone else has been, and so let me just first announce our witnesses. We have Mr. Kendall Carver from Phoenix, AZ. We have

Mr. Son Michael Pham, Bellevue, WA. We have Ms. Deborah

Shaffer of Tucson, AZ. We have Ms. Janet Kelly, Cottonwood, AZ.

We have Mr. Ira Leonard of Hamden, CT, and we have Mr. Brian

Mulvaney, Miami, FL.

And let me say to the witnesses that we would ask you to stand

and we will now swear you in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Note for the record all our witnesses have responded

in the affirmative.

I suspect this is probably the first time you have ever appeared

before Congress, and if not, you have had a little practice. But if

not, the worst thing you can do is try to speak too quickly. It would

be better to just close off your comments than try to rush through.

Be assured that you are going to be able to make your points

through the questions and so on. So you are not going to leave here

wishing you did not say something, unless you simply forgot to say

it, but you will be given that opportunity.

We are going to go down the line, and, Mr. Carver, the mic

should have a light on it noting that it is on. Just tap it here just

to see. Yes, you are all right. OK, welcome. Lovely to have you

here.

STATEMENTS OF KENDALL CARVER, PHOENIX, AZ; SON MICHAEL PHAM, BELLEVUE, WA; DEBORAH SHAFFER, TUCSON,

AZ; JANET KELLY, COTTONWOOD, AZ; IRA LEONARD, HAMDEN, CT; AND BRIAN MULVANEY, MIAMI, FL

STATEMENT OF KENDALL CARVER

Mr. CARVER. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the

subcommittee for accepting our testimony in connection with the

disappearance of our daughter, Merrian Lynn Carver.

Merrian disappeared during the third week of August in the year

2002. We contacted the police in Cambridge, MA, where she lived.

They determined through credit card transactions that she had

purchased a round-trip ticket to Seattle, returning from Vancouver,

and a ticket on the Celebrity Cruise Line Ship Mercury leaving Seattle on August 27th. Merrian disappeared from that ship.

I provided supporting material to the subcommittee, which goes

into considerable detail, and I would like to summarize our experience with the cruise line. Since they were not able to provide the

necessary answers to our questions through the Risk Management

Department, we retained both private investigators and law firms

to investigate her disappearance.

31

Some months later we uncovered the following facts: The steward

servicing our daughter’s cabin reported her missing to the supervisor each day for 5 days. The supervisor told the steward ‘‘just do

your job and that’s it.’’

At the end of the cruise, some of Merrian’s clothing and personal

items were disposed of and other items were put in storage. No effort was made to report Merrian’s disappearance either to the authorities or to her family. In effect, these actions or lack of actions

kept Merrian’s disappearance from being discovered until the Cambridge Police acted, which was over 3 weeks later, and in effect, she

vanished from the Earth.

During the third week in September, the management of Royal

Caribbean—‘‘the owners’’ of the cruise ship, took steps to cover up

the facts concerning her disappearance. These actions are covered

in documents which are provided on the table under supplemental

folder, which I have provided.

At the end of September, we hired the detective agency of Kroll

and Associates and the law firm of Blake and Associates to investigate her disappearance.

Throughout the investigation, the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line

took every step to impede the efforts of our detective agencies and

law firms. Officials of the cruise line provided both inaccurate and

misleading information and kept our investigators from questioning

members of the crew.

Cruise line officials also withheld information that would have

been helpful, including information that we had requested by subpoena on both December 2, 2004 and January 24, 2005.

Only after we went to the courts in Florida and Massachusetts

at the end of December were we able to force crew members that

had knowledge of her disappearance to be deposed. In other words,

it took us 41⁄2 months to get to one crew member that had seen

Merrian on that ship.

On January 16th and 17th, we finally deposed the steward and

the head of the hotel of the cruise. At that point we discovered for

the first time the fact that our daughter had been reported missing

daily starting August 29th and no action was taken. In other

words, it took us, as I just said, 41⁄2 months to interview a member

of the crew and that cost over $75,000.

On February 9th, we received only one item from two subpoenas

that had been issued, and that was a poor-quality picture of

Merrian getting on the boat. So we took the direction of going directly to the Board of Directors of the Royal Caribbean Cruise Line

with all the depositions showing the coverup, hoping that we could

jump-start action concerning her case.

We are now a year later, and I must say that we still have not

received the information that we subpoenaed on December 2nd,

and that exercise was not helpful.

I do not understand why a reputable corporation would attempt

to cover up the disappearance of our daughter. Did some officials

of this cruise line assume that the families would not have the financial or emotional resources to investigate this matter thoroughly?

32

The needless stress that my wife and I have endured while we

have struggled with a large corporation for information about our

missing daughter has made our loss even more difficult to bear.

As a result of the last hearings, there has been much press concerning Merrian in various news media around the world, and we

have received comments. There was a comment in the Arizona Republic, which I would like to read to you, and it says, in effect, ‘‘I

agree with the other respondents; Royal Caribbean is grossly negligent in this case. By dragging their feet, providing misinformation, getting rid of a person with information (the supervisor) and

destroying evidence they are at least guilty of obstruction of justice.’’

Now, is this case unique? I think it is unique because I don’t

think anyone else has spent the time and the resources to break

through the coverup, which we did.

Mr. SHAYS. How much have you spent, just for the record?

Mr. CARVER. Way over $75,000.

Are we unique? If you read the attachments in my summary documents, you will find that few, if any, individuals are ever successfully convicted of a crime on a cruise ship. In fact, by their own

statement in the Jacksonville Business Journal in June of the year

2005, a Royal Caribbean representative, Michael Sheehan, indicated they do not keep statistics on missing passengers. I find that

hard to believe.

Now, what can we conclude from our experiences and the experiences of other victims?

If something happens to you or a loved one on a cruise ship, you

are on your own. Don’t expect the crew of the ship or governmental

agencies, which I would include the FBI, onshore to assist you in

your effort. You are on your own.

Because of jurisdictional issues, you cannot assume what laws

will govern your situation. This issue was reviewed in great detail

in the February 26th issue of the New York Times.

In my opinion, the current system is broke and desperately needs

reform to assure the safety of passengers on cruise ships.

Unless something is changed in the current regulations, the

cruise line industry will be able to treat the next family as we were

treated. God save the next family.

After the subcommittee’s hearing last December, the Smiths and

I determined that we needed to make a change to the industry. As

a result, we have formed a group of victims. This organization is

called International Cruise Victims. Our Web site can be found at

www.international-cruisevictims.org.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Carver, I am going to ask you to kind of close

up here.

Mr. CARVER. OK. Well, let me just read a summary statement

here.

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. CARVER. From a crew member, we received this a week ago:

As a crew member from Vancouver, with employment on several

major lines over the last 8 years, your story only touches the tip

of the iceberg. It is an exhaustive study you will find on behalf of

your loved ones, which keeps this issue front and center. Many

families have not come forward. Instead they intend to believe the

33

cruise line when they reiterate their old, tired response that this

is a suicide. In addition to the many guests going missing, there

are numerous crew members each year which go unreported because they are from Third World countries.

And to put a positive spin to what I have said, which is not a

positive story——

Mr. SHAYS. You need to close up now.

Mr. CARVER. Yes. We would like to enter into the record a list

of recommendations to be considered to change the cruise line industry.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carver follows:]

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

Mr. SHAYS. All right. Thank you very much. We have copies of

that. Thank you.

Let me tell you that, in my judgment, however this hearing concludes and whatever we do, what you have gone through is outrageous, and we would respectfully request that the cruise line totally and completely cooperate with your need to know what happened, etc. So I just hope, if nothing else happens, we will at least

see some change in how they have responded. To fire this superintendent is not satisfying the need for you to know.

Mr. Pham.

STATEMENT OF SON MICHAEL PHAM

Mr. PHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I am honored to be here today along with several families of victims of the cruise industry immediately behind me, including John and Jill Savone, who lost a son from the same cruise

ship in 1999, to speak on issues of cruise ship safety, security, and

accountability.

I would like to start out by saying that I am not an expert on

safety and security issues aboard cruise ships. However, I am more

educated today than I was before May 2005. Unfortunately for my

family, it is too late to prevent what happened to us. But I know

by being here today it is not too late for me to help others from

becoming victims like all of us.

Since the time is limited, I am going to skip through what I submitted to the record of my testimony and tell you a little of the

background of my folks.

Briefly, more than 30 years ago my parents and five of us left

South Vietnam on the day before Saigon City fell to the communists. We risked our lives spending 2 weeks in the Pacific Ocean

with little food and water. We came here with nothing so that we

could live in freedom. We came to the United States with nothing

and worked hard for everything we have today. As American citizens, we obey the rules and laws of the country, we cherish our

freedom, and we trust the justice system to protect our rights.

Last May 2005, all of the children treated Mom and Dad to a vacation, a trip to Chicago to visit the grandchildren followed by a 7-

day Caribbean cruise, then back to Chicago for 2 more weeks with

the grandkids. The cruise was a Mother’s Day gift, traveling with

their daughter and granddaughter. On May 12, 2005, my parents

vanished from the Carnival Destiny when the ship was sailing between the islands of Barbados and Aruba. The Mother’s Day gift

turned into another tragic and mysterious disappearance from a

Carnival Cruise Line ship.

On the evening of May 12th, a ship photographer reported that

she noticed personal belongings by lounge chairs on the third deck,

two pair of sandals, and a purse. The family hung our regularly in

this area, lounging on the chairs, and Mom and Dad would leave

their sandals and personal belongings on the chairs or deck between them. A crew member retrieved the found items, notified the

assistant chief of security, and was told to log the items and phone

the room. Thirty minutes later, the other family members came

back to their cabin and received a phone call from the front desk

50

to retrieve the found items. Then they realized something unusual

had happened and alerted the crew members. This is at midnight.

Following our parents’ disappearance, it took almost 3 hours

later before the first general announcement was made over the

public speakers. The crew waited for over 4 hours before notifying

the U.S. Coast Guard and allowed the ship to further distance

itself from the location where our parents were originally reported

missing. Too much time had elapsed between the U.S. Coast Guard

notification and the first search and rescue from the Netherlands

Coast Guard. Under the direction of the Coast Guard, the ship

turned around to participate in the search mission. It took 12 hours

before the Destiny vessel returned to the original location. The full

search and rescue mission was called off. You know why it was

called off? In less than 13 hours from the presumed time of our

parents’ disappearance, based on the information provided by the

ship’s captain to the Coast Guard that survivability was very low.

We have that record from the Coast Guard.

We believe there is more detailed information on our parents’

cause of death than what is actually being released by Carnival

Cruise Line. Four hours went by before the security and surveillance on-duty investigator was contacted—4 hours. Then an additional 30 minutes went by before he contacted the FBI. It took

them 4 hours to decide to look in the security camera to find out

if they found anything about my parents. The area where the personal belongings were found was left unprotected for 7 hours until

the FBI requested a crew to seal off the area. Guess what happened when the FBI showed up in St. Maarten? They boarded the

ship when people got off the ship at the same time because they

came there to take a report. They went on the ship to interview

my family members and some of the crew members and that is it.

People got off the ship. Nobody had a chance to speak or be questioned by the FBI.

Then another thing. My family reported last seeing my family at

7:20 p.m. Eleven and a half hours after my parents were reported

missing, the cabin housekeeping attendant reported to the captain

that he saw my parents at 8:45 p.m. So during all that time they

were searching the wrong place in this big, big vast ocean. They

were clueless. They did not talk to everybody, apparently. They

were more focused on planning the next day’s short activities in St.

Maarten, which is a replacement for Aruba, than protecting crucial

information and evidence pertaining to two of their missing passengers; our parents.

The FBI met the ship in St. Maarten to interview some crew

members. I mentioned about that. These are two American citizens

with no personal and financial problems, no serious health problems, living the happiest time of their lives, both, just like many

others, vanished without a trace, witness, or surveillance tapes of

what happened to them.

After my family members were left off in San Juan, the cruise

ship, just clean up the ship, people got off, big chaos going on, and

then that is when they handed out the flyer from the FBI that anyone having information to contact the FBI. And that is it. The arrogant ‘‘business as usual’’ attitude by Carnival Cruise Line is the

normal ‘‘take no responsibility’’ reaction of the world’s largest

51

cruise company, accounting for more than half the world’s cruise

industry travelers. It is important to note that the majority of their

passengers are citizens of the United States of America.

I am going to wrap up. Currently the Death on the High Seas

Act [DOHSA], a 1920’s law enacted by the U.S. Congress, is still

in effect, with complicated jurisdictional issues, continues to protect

the cruise industry from being held accountable for the safety and

security of its passengers. It is time for our Government to bring

the DOHSA to the 21st century.

My only recommendation is nothing is going to happen from

these hearings, nothing is going to happen with us being here

today, nothing is going to happen until the cruise industry admits

that we do have problems, we do have issues. Don’t look at the statistics. We do have problems. And then that will be the very, very

first step before something being done.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pham follows:]

52

53

54

55

56

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we will

look forward to having dialog with you.

Ms. Shaffer, you need to bring the mic a little closer to you.

Thank you, and take your time.

Ms. SHAFFER. Can you hear me?

Mr. SHAYS. I hear you fine.

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH SHAFFER

Ms. SHAFFER. I am Deborah Savage Shaffer, the mother of four

daughters, all currently teenagers except for the oldest, who is 21

and living on her own. I have been a widow for the past 12 years

and I am currently a full-time Mom.

The reason that I have been invited to tell my story today is because I am a member of International Cruise Victims, a group that

was formed mainly to get the word out to the public, domestically

as well as internationally, of the well-kept and expertly hidden secret of the criminal activities and dangers that are occurring on

board these cruise ships and to educate the public of the cruise

lines’ standard procedures in dealing with criminal or potential

criminal problems. We hope education, information, and regulations will gave passengers, as well as cruise line employees, rights,

security, and protection.

In April 2003, I took a 10-day cruise with my four daughters to

the southern Caribbean on board the Carnival Cruise Lines’ Legend. I shared a balcony room with my 13-year-old and my 15-yearold. My other two daughters shared an interior room down the hall.

When we departed from the dock, my daughters and I were standing on the balcony of our room as we slowly moved away from port.

I should have been tipped off that all was not as it appeared, when

as we stood enjoying the breeze and sensation of the departure we

were bowled over by the strong, pungent smell of marijuana. We

tried to see where it was coming from, but it was impossible because of the design of the ship and balconies.

Boarding the ship had taken hours, possibly half a day. It was

the most detailed security check-in that I had ever been through

and definitely surpassed the airports and airlines, in my opinion.

So how did the marijuana get on board? But with the excitement

of the day, I dismissed the thought. I felt safe, secure, and had no

doubt that everyone on board this ship had to be reputable and of

good character. It was not anything that I gave any more thought

to. Passing through the intense security measures of the cruise

line, once on board the ship I felt 100 percent safe, secure, and

trusting. The crew seemed open, friendly, and professional. I subconsciously let my guard down. Right away, my kids met other kids

their own age, and they were all busy running around the ship together.

The first evening on board, my 15-year-old daughter met a young

girl her own age, and they were hanging out together. My daughter

was supposed to be back to our cabin by 10 p.m., but when she arrived, I was already in bed asleep. She brought her new friend into

the room to meet me. So we turned on the light, her friend sat

down, and the three of us talked for a while. Then they said they

wanted to go back to the girl’s cabin to watch a video. I told my

daughter to be back by midnight. I fell back to sleep thinking my

57

daughter would wake me up again when she got in. But at 4 a.m.,

I woke up, startled that she had not come back. I jumped out of

bed, and in my pajamas I ran down the hall to Security.

It took about an hour to get everyone moving on finding my

daughter, but after giving them a first name of the girl that she

was with, it seemed that they only knocked on one door before finding my daughter. She came out of the room rubbing her swollen,

puffy eyes. I was very angry with her, but believed that she had

just fallen asleep. I asked her what had happened, as she was very

defensive. She was overreacting to my questions, but at that time

I had no suspicion that a rape had just occurred.

One or 2 days later, my 13-year-old daughter came to me and

told me that she had been informed by my 15-year-old daughter

and the new girlfriend that the girl’s brother had raped my daughter that night.

I then confronted my 15-year-old daughter, but she denied it. She

told me that nothing had happened. She became overly hysterical

and cried in denial constantly, whenever I tried to approach the

subject. I knew by her over-emotional behavior that she was lying

and that something had happened. I took her to the ship’s doctor

3 days in a row, but each time she would become hysterical and

deny the rape. Each visit brought nothing but solemn and somber

stares from the doctor for as long as I wanted to sit there requesting an examination. He told me that if my daughter is telling me

the truth and if, in fact, she is still a virgin, having never had a

pelvic exam, that by him examining her the examination in itself

would be violating her and that my insistence of an examination

would traumatize her for life.

I had become the perpetrator. The captain called me in to talk

to me on two occasions after this. He told me that we were on

‘‘international waters.’’ He did not tell me what that meant. He told

me that he felt badly, but that since we have no proof of the rape,

there was nothing that could be done. He told me that he has two

daughters of his own and that he felt very badly about the incident.

The rapist was the friend’s 30-year-old brother who was sharing a

cabin with her and her younger brother.

I had no one to consult with, no one to turn to. I didn’t know

what to do. Finishing up the trip on that cruise was laborious, and

for much of the trip I didn’t come out of my room. It was one of

the worst experiences of my entire life.

I have since learned the true story of what happened that night,

as 3 years of maturity have given my daughter the courage and

character to discuss it. After becoming aware of the Jennifer HagelSmith story and the Ken Carver story, she told me that she was

now ready to tell me what really happened on that first night on

board the Legend after leaving our room to go to the newly found

friend’s room to watch the video.

My daughter had climbed into one of the bunks, and while

watching the video she fell asleep. The next thing she knew, there

was a man on top of her. The room was dark. She thought it was

the girl’s father. He had alcohol breath. She told him that she

needed to get up, but he wouldn’t let her. She started to scream

and he covered her mouth, muffling her screams and proceeded to

58

rape her. The next thing she knew, there was knocking on the door

of the room and that was when we found her.

She denied the rape because she thought it was her fault and

also because she was embarrassed and didn’t want ‘‘the whole

world to know.’’ She is not sure at what point she realized it was

the girl’s 30-year-old brother.

Rape is an earth-shattering, traumatizing experience that kills

the person that you are and slowly changes you into someone else.

From that day forward, my daughter has distanced herself emotionally from me. Now she never shares her innermost thoughts

with me. Losing her father almost 12 years ago and then being

raped 8 years later is an enormous hurt in her whole being that

could never begin to heal until she was able to address what had

happened.

I am extremely thankful to the Hagel-Smith family and to Ken

Carver for coming forward and standing up for what is right and

being brave enough to insist that people listen to the truth. With

their efforts and the efforts of other cruise victims who could not

be here today, my daughter has been able to take her first step in

the healing process. And as her mother, whose goal in life was to

raise her four daughters to at least the age of 18 without being sexually abused, I have lived with the fact that I failed my daughter

over these past 3 years. I was not able to protect her or defend her.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shaffer follows:]

59

60

61

62

63

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Shaffer, thank you so much for your testimony,

and the one thing I am certain is you have not failed your daughter.

Ms. SHAFFER. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. It is pretty remarkable to raise four young ladies

without a partner. Very remarkable.

Ms. Kelly, if you would bring that mic to you?

I just want to ask you, Ms. Shaffer, is your daughter in agreement that you should give testimony today or are you sharing this

information without her consent?

Ms. SHAFFER. She is very ashamed. She has not even at this

point——

Mr. SHAYS. How about just giving me the answer?

Ms. SHAFFER. She is 18. It is so hard——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you the question, though. Is she asking

you not to or is she just indifferent?

Ms. SHAFFER. She did not ask me not to.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. But she didn’t ask you to.

Ms. SHAFFER. She is not happy about it, but she did not ask me

not to.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Well, we will just make sure that what you

shared will lead to some good so that your daughter will see that.

Ms. SHAFFER. I hope so.

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Kelly.

Ms. KELLY. Can you hear me?

Mr. SHAYS. We hear you fine.

STATEMENT OF JANET KELLY

Ms. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee

also. My name is Janet Kelly. I would like to begin by telling a little bit about myself. I am a happily married woman to the same

man, Rick Kelly. He is sitting behind me today.

Mr. SHAYS. For the record, he smiled.

Ms. KELLY. We are going on 30 years of marriage. God help us,

huh? We live in an average size town in Arizona, and we have two

sons, who are the love of our life.

I am a successful realtor for a large firm going into my 4th year

of sales. My husband is also a hard-working man. We are a traditional family, traditional values. We work hard, pay our taxes, go

to church, give back to our community. And, above all, we do obey

the law.

In February 2000—we had been beat up pretty good—we had

lost our daughter, and my husband had a heart attack 6 months

later. I decided to do a ‘‘healing cruise,’’ 4 days with some neighbors. I had hoped to relax, regroup, and return home to my family.

It was a long overdue vacation, and I could have never anticipated

the following: On the last night of the cruise, shortly before dinner,

I was drugged by a bartender employed by the cruise line. He led

me a remote bathroom marked ‘‘crew members only’’ and sexually

assaulted me when I was in a semi-conscious and unconscious

state.

I cannot begin to describe to you today the pain, humiliation, and

suffering this incident inflicted on me and my family. Instead of

64

being able to regroup after everything that had transpired in our

family, we were again totally fractured.

I did report the crime to my local authorities, who informed me

that the FBI had jurisdiction over crimes at sea. But it took the

FBI months to investigate and interview the assailant who raped

me. They did not prosecute him, even though they had my clothing,

the rape kit completed at my local hospital, the individual’s identity, and my testimony. The authorities had my full and complete

cooperation to do whatever was necessary to apprehend and bring

the criminal to justice.

After the FBI interviewed this criminal, he remained on the

same ship. I was terrified that I had been exposed to HIV, and it

was only after filing my civil suit against the cruise line that the

cruise line conceded to have his tested for HIV. They fired him and

sent him back to his homeland, Jamaica.

I did write a letter to my Senator, along with 200 congressional

leaders. I was concerned for others’ safety as I walked off that ship,

and for good reason. I felt that the injustice of what happened to

me has never been righted. In my letter I proposed the same

changes, back in 2000, which I will again propose today.

For the record, I would like to inform Congress that my assailant

went on later that same year and was re-employed with yet another cruise line. And I am not happy about that. It was determined that he falsified his application and they fired him. But

where is he now?

This is hardly the image portrayed on the cruise line advertisements. Could this rapist and others like himself be on another

cruise line? And how is it that these huge cruise corporations continue to operate business as usual with absolutely no accountability

for the crimes that occur on their ships?

I am going to suggest the following, and these are the same recommendations I had made back in 2000: U.S. Marshals be present

on cruise ships; a main data base of terminated individuals and

employees that all cruise lines must report to. I want to add here,

too, that there needs to be communication between the FBI and the

cruise lines because I think there is a real breakdown in that area.

Changes in legislation, making these cruise lines safe for U.S. passengers. Warnings to passengers. This incident happened to me on

my last night of the cruise, and I think that is when most people

are vulnerable.

In closing, over the past 6 years since my ordeal, I have heard

too many stories about cruise victim after victim. The injustice of

these crimes burns my very soul. Two of the people that disappeared on these cruise lines—George Smith and Jim Scavone—

disappeared on my youngest son’s birthday, July 5th. Enough is

enough. Having been a victim, I feel each one of these families’

pain. I offer all the families that have lost loved ones my sincere

condolences. Your children’s deaths are not in vain. By being

strong and coming forward with your testimonies, you can give

your loved ones a voice today and prevent the next unnecessary

death. I ask that you not be intimidated by these cruise companies.

They are big, they are wealthy, they are powerful. But they will

bend under the weight of your conviction.

65

I want to add I feel honored to be here today as a representative

of hundreds of cruise victims who do not have a voice. And thank

you for letting me speak today. I want to say a prayer to the Lord

that you are successful in making the necessary changes so that

crimes at sea diminish and all of us can get on with healing and

put all this trauma behind us once and for all. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelly follows:]

66

67

68

69

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. It is very admirable of you to

come and testify today.

Ms. KELLY. It was not easy.

Mr. SHAYS. I am sure it was not.

Ms. KELLY. I got through it, though.

Mr. SHAYS. I can understand why your husband has a nice smile.

I am sure he is very proud of you.

Ms. KELLY. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Leonard.

STATEMENT OF IRA LEONARD

Mr. LEONARD. Good afternoon.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Leonard, I am going to ask you to put that mic

on top of those papers you have there and put it closer to you.

Mr. LEONARD. Better.

Mr. SHAYS. That is better.

Mr. LEONARD. OK. Good afternoon. My name is Ira Leonard. My

wife and I are retired college teachers. We do not represent any organization concerned with today’s activities, nor are we involved in

a lawsuit or possessor of any Federal grant or contract, now or during the last 2 years.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Leonard, we do hear you, but we need that mic

closer to you.

Mr. LEONARD. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. I know you are a professor and so do not easily take

suggestions.

Mr. LEONARD. We are here today because my wife and I were victims of a grand larceny on board a Royal Caribbean International

cruise ship on June 2, 2004, in Bermuda. The Royal Caribbean

International not only refused to discuss the theft with us, but

eventually denied to an officer of the Federal Maritime Commission

that it ever took place. This is the letter.

We reported the theft early in the morning when we discovered

the loss. Six hours later, the official search was conducted, and the

jewelry worth $6,700 was not found.

We filed a signed statement, using an RCI form, with the aid of

the ship’s chief security officer, William MacLaughlin. This is the

signed statement.

MacLaughlin told us the theft was a crime of opportunity and

the jewelry was most likely out on the streets. What made it a

crime of opportunity, we are convinced, was the negligence of the

staff before the theft as well as immediately after the theft.

First, there was no safe in the room. Our steward said the room

was secure because it could only be entered with the key cards. The

steward said there were only three people with access to the room:

my wife, me, and himself. Yet my wife was issued four different

key cards over a period of 2 days in order to have proper access

to our room, which we reported in our signed statement.

The first key card did not work. The second did not work because

it was to somebody else’s room. The third key card worked, but had

my name on it, so she had to be issued yet another card with her

name on it. The fourth card worked. None of the key cards were

destroyed in front of her. The third card worked and had the last

three digits, 0–2–0, of our four-digit room number on it, as well as

70

our dinner seating time, 8:30 p.m., as did her fourth key card. Anyone with knowledge of the ship would know exactly when we would

not be in the room and could try rooms 3020, 4020, etc.

Chief Security Officer MacLaughlin specifically told us after the

burglary that the key cards should have been cut up in front of my

wife. We feel that the key card incidents were evidence of negligence and lack of security. Guest Relations Manager Luis Martins

kept dismissing the notion of multiple key cards as being a problem, insisting they had been deactivated when they were turned in.

However, at approximately 3 p.m. in Guest Relations on Saturday

after the burglary, we and several other passengers witnessed a

crew member with a box of key cards cutting them up into little

pieces.

Key cards are also used as credit cards, which presents another

security problem. On May 31st, we ordered drinks in the Schooner

Lounge at 11 p.m., our first drinks of the evening, and our only

drinks, handing our key card to the waitress. When neither the

drinks nor the card had arrived by 11:45 p.m., we went looking for

her. She said she had asked another person to deliver our drinks.

The card with all of our information was out of our presence for

45 minutes. A situation like this presents an opportunity for burglary, identity theft, planting of contraband in a room, etc., if someone was so inclined.

Luis Martins told us that our statement and the chief security

officer’s report about the burglary were being forwarded to Royal

Caribbean International in Miami. He gave us their card and instructed us to contact them upon returning home. He also told us

not to worry and to continue enjoying the cruise because ‘‘Royal

Caribbean has a reputation for doing the right thing.’’ We were

naive enough at the time to believe that Royal Caribbean International would do the right thing, but we no longer enjoyed the

cruise.

We repeatedly asked Mr. Martins for a copy of our signed statement reporting the theft and a copy of the chief security officer’s

report, but it was not until my wife told him on Saturday afternoon

we were not getting off the ship without a copy of our report that

he delivered a copy of our signed statement, but he would not give

us a copy of the security officer’s report.

We reported the burglary as instructed to Royal Caribbean Representative Betty Taillefer, Personal Property Guest Relations, in

Miami on June 9th, the day after we arrived home. It is at this

point that the saga really began for us.

She said she had not received any information about the theft

from Empress of the Seas. Pursuant to our phone conversation

with her, we faxed her a copy of our signed shipboard statement

along with additional statements made to her that day and again

on June 29th. Betty Taillefer sent us two identical RCI form letters

in which she dismissed company responsibility, directing us to the

cruise documents disclaimer of responsibility and officially referring to the grand larceny as ‘‘an unfortunate incident.’’

We reported the theft to the Federal Maritime Commission in

August 2004. An agent told us that the Commission sought to act

as an intermediary and work our solutions, but it had no coercive

power to do so. On January 26, 2005, the Federal Maritime ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
71

mission agent said she contacted Ms. Betty Taillefer, and Ms.

Taillefer sent her the same form letter she sent us, referring her

to the cruise documents. When the agent requested Ms. Taillefer

to send her a copy of Security Chief MacLaughlin’s report, Taillefer

said she would, but it has not been forthcoming. Instead, Betty

Taillefer faxed the Federal Maritime Commission this letter, which

says, ‘‘We contacted our vessel and no notice of incident was reported.’’

‘‘We have contacted our vessel and no notice of incident was reported.’’ Yet I have here the signed report.

Mr. SHAYS. I am sorry, Mr. Leonard, if you would bring it to——

Mr. LEONARD. We are just about done.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. LEONARD. We sent the president of AAA all of our information since AAA booked us and asked how AAA could in good conscience continue to book their members on Royal Caribbean International without informing them about the potential problems with

key cards, thefts, etc. Vice President for AAA Travel Services Sandra Hughes sent us a letter in which she assured us, that our claim

had been reviewed properly and appropriately, and AAA had ‘‘verified that when a new key card is produced, the previous key card

is deactivated as a security measure.’’ I guess that is why my wife

and I and other RCI guests saw a Guest Relations staff member

busily cutting dozens of key cards 2 days after the burglary.

Finally, on April 20, 2005, we wrote to Captain Howard Newhoff,

Security Manager for Royal Caribbean International, asking for the

official report by RCI of the grand larceny to some law enforcement

agency. A few days later, Betty Taillefer called us to tell us personally that RCI did not have to report thefts of less than $10,000 and

followed it up with this letter that says precisely that.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. We are going to go to Mr.

Mulvaney. If you want to just——

Mr. LEONARD. I have one more line.

Mr. SHAYS. Go for it.

Mr. LEONARD. This is ‘‘bingo’’ time. In this week’s Time Magazine, Captain Bill Wright, head of RCI Fleet Operations, told the

reporter that Royal Caribbean discloses every incident, even petty

thefts, to authorities. We are still waiting to find out to which law

enforcement agency RCI reported our grand larceny. Perhaps this

subcommittee can find out for us.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Leonard, we will find out for you.

Mr. LEONARD. All right.

Mr. SHAYS. Because this subcommittee has some real questions

about the accuracy of the statistics that the industry provides to

us, so it will be a good follow-through.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mulvaney.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN MULVANEY

Mr. MULVANEY. Good afternoon. I am appearing before you today

to tell you about a terrible tragedy which happened to a beautiful

young girl, Lynsey O’Brien. I want to tell you about this tragedy

and how it could have been avoided and urge you to consider passing a new law to prevent it from happening to any other family.

I am a childhood friend of the O’Brien family. We grew up on the

same street. The O’Brien children and my children are lifelong

friends. The O’Briens traveled from Ireland to the United States to

visit with us before we took off on a cruise from Fort Lauderdale

and returned to Fort Lauderdale.

The O’Briens brought with them four children and returned with

only three.

Lynsey, who was a vibrant 15-year-old girl, died as a result of

a bartender on the Cost Cruise line serving her excessive amounts

of alcohol, more than 10, knowing she was a minor. This bartender

served these drinks despite the bold statement in the passenger

contract that ‘‘no minor will be served alcohol under age of 21 years

old.’’ There were signs all over the ship to the effect that alcohol

will not be served to any persons under 21 years of age. Despite

those warnings and signs posted, Lynsey was served more than 10

drinks and died on January 5th as a result. The alcohol affected

her so much, she was so intoxicated that it was reported she was

vomiting over the balcony and fell overboard.

Through this tragedy, I have come to learn how difficult it is for

victims and their families to seek justice. I know of no other commercial enterprise afforded such blanket coverage as the cruise industry. If alcohol is served to a 15-year-old in the United States,

the bartender would be arrested, prosecuted, as well as the proprietors of the business and their liquor license would surely be revoked from the premises. Just because this action took place on

board a ship should not insulate the bartender and the company

from being held accountable for their criminal conduct.

The message must be delivered to the cruise lines that if they

take passengers from a U.S. port, they are responsible to return

them safely or be held accountable if they commit crimes or acts

of gross negligence. I cannot imagine a worse crime than plying a

15-year-old girl with so much liquor she literally died as a direct

result. What makes this utterly unbearable is that the cruise ships

believe they have limited accountability for their actions.

There can be no moral argument to changing this law, only commercial. The shareholders demand great protection and receive

that. Why not the lifeblood of the industry—we, the passengers? I

do not support overregulation of private industry. What I do support is a victim’s right to a full and fair account of their unfortunate circumstance and their ability to seek justice without being

prohibited by laws enacted prior to the sinking of the Titanic. The

pleasure cruise industry has grown today and was not envisioned

to be this great by the sponsors of this law when it was originally

enacted. This is a growth industry. The percentage of victims may

not change; however, the number of victims certainly will over the

future.

118

We encourage people from other countries to come to the United

States and enjoy our country. We encourage people from other

countries to spend money here. My childhood friend, Paul O’Brien,

sought help from the FBI and was told that there was nothing that

can be done because they were not U.S. citizens. The United States

needs to change its laws so that cruise ships coming and going

from U.S. ports such as this are held accountable to all people traveling on those ships.

Nothing can bring Lynsey back, but by changing the law, perhaps we can save another family a lifetime of anguish without

their loved one.

What we ask of the subcommittee is for you to put into place

policies and procedures on these cruise lines with teeth in them,

not just signs that are window dressings, to be sure that alcohol

is not served to minors. Cruise ships who pick up passengers in the

United States should be protected by U.S. law so the FBI will have

jurisdiction to investigate and determine if criminal law has been

violated and so the violators should be prosecuted. The DOHSA

should be amended retroactively, like the one following the airplane disaster, so there is responsibility to the cruise ships, the

only real means of deterrence.

On behalf of the O’Brien family, I would like to thank you for allowing me to speak today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mulvaney follows:]

119

120

121

Mr. SHAYS. We thank you for your testimony. We thank all of

you for your testimony. We will look forward to the dialog we will

have.

I am going to be calling on Mr. Lynch first, and then, Mr. Duncan, if you would like to go second. I am going to have the staff

ask some questions, and then I will be asking questions.

Thank you. Mr. Lynch, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and at

the outset I want to thank you for taking the leadership on this

issue, and I commend you for your continued efforts to improve security and incident responses and investigation aboard international cruise ships.

In addition, I want to just take a moment to thank the witnesses

because it is your powerful testimony here today that will eventually lead to changes. And we have a situation here that you have

brought to the notice of the U.S. Congress and others that the

heart of our problem here is that in each and every incident that

was described here today, the cruise line themselves has control of

the crime scene. They have control of the employees. They have

control of the evidence. They have control of the notification of law

enforcement authorities. And this situation has arisen haphazardly. It is because there has been a lack of focus on these very

issues, and in some cases, it is because the incidents have been deliberately concealed from the public until you have testified here

today and in other cases previously, and you have had the courage

to come forward. I know it is very difficult for you in many cases

to talk about your loved ones, Mr. Carver, Ms. Kelly, and others.

And I appreciate the difficulty that must present to you. And I can

only pledge my energies to try to help come up with a plan, along

with the chairman, to try to introduce some law and order on these

ships so that we can feel safe when our loved ones go on a cruise.

But, Ms. Kelly, I just wanted to ask you, after you reported the

crime in your case, do you know of any actions that the ship’s security officers took in response to your particular complaint?

Ms. KELLY. No, I know of nothing until it—well, it was a process,

but what I did is I notified the authorities right away when I got

home, and then I just assumed, like in America, that once you report something, that there was going to be followup. It was actually

a couple weeks before the FBI actually went on—actually, no, no,

no. It was 2 weeks before they came out and interviewed me, and

then I just kept calling and trying to get answers as to what was

going on. You know, and you would get no response. And then it

was 2 months before they went in and actually interviewed him,

but there was no prosecution. I mean, they did not prosecute him.

Mr. LYNCH. Was there any explanation given to you after you reported it, after the assailant was interviewed, he remained employed for a while until you brought—as I understand the record,

it was not until you brought the civil suit——

Ms. KELLY. That is correct.

Mr. LYNCH [continuing]. That he was actually discharged.

Ms. KELLY. That is correct. If I had not done what I did—and

it was my one and only lawsuit. I don’t believe in suing people,

truthfully. I mean, I am not going to sue over a hot cup of coffee.

This is not in my nature. But had I not done that, he could have

122

still been working there all these past 6 years. It was only because

of that action that he was actually terminated. Law enforcement

totally failed me. I am sorry, but it did. And, actually, there was

an investigation—or when I wrote Senator McCain, he forwarded

my letter to the FBI, and they have some oversight—I don’t know

the name of who, you know, looks into their investigations to make

sure that the FBI is doing their job properly. And they just determined that there was very little they could do because the individual did not deny it. He admitted it. But he said it was consensual.

Well, it was not consensual. I was raped.

So, rape is a bad crime, and unfortunately it looks like you are

the bad person. But, you know, so that is basically what happened.

Mr. LYNCH. I appreciate your courage in coming forward.

Ms. KELLY. Thank you. Let’s just hope it does some good.

Mr. LYNCH. I really do.

May I ask you—and you may not be aware of this—did the FBI

disclose if there was a mutual assistance agreement, a memorandum between them and the registered jurisdiction in this case?

Ms. KELLY. Repeat that again?

Mr. LYNCH. What flag were you flying under in terms of your

ship?

Ms. KELLY. Because of—when I sued civilly, one of the terms of

my statement was that I was not at liberty to disclose the cruise

line.

Mr. LYNCH. OK, OK. I am sorry.

Ms. KELLY. No, that is OK. The cruise ship—no, I need to say

that because I want it on record, or the terms of the settlement.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. I can get that from another source.

Ms. KELLY. But you know what? Like I said, no regrets, because

had I not done it——

Mr. LYNCH. Oh, absolutely. Undoubtedly——

Ms. KELLY. But it would have been easier to bury my head and

just tuck my head in the sand and say that it did not happen. That

would have totally been the easier way to take.

Mr. LYNCH. OK. Mr. Chairman, I know you have questions. I am

going to yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank the gentleman. At this time the Chair recognizes Mr. Duncan.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Shays. I have appointments set up

every 15 minutes this afternoon, with more still to come, before I

knew about this hearing. But I did read the testimony of all of the

witnesses, and certainly each of the witnesses has had a very terrible tragedy occur. I have four children, and I have always heard

the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone is to outlive one

of their children, and I certainly sympathize with that.

The only thing that I see is that, I mean we should be able to

agree on some steps, like immediate notification of crimes and

things like that. Maybe there should be some sort of requirement

about signs being posted on these ships that would say something

to the effect that while the incidence of crime on ships is extremely,

extremely low, if you are the victim of a crime, that it is to be reported immediately to the ship’s captain, and immediately reported

by them to the authorities on shore, and there may be some other

steps that we can take, but certainly, we want to do what we can

123

within reason, whatever that might be. That is all I have, Mr.

Chairman. I do not really have any questions.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank the gentleman, and I agree with him, I agree

with you and your points. Let me at this time recognize our counsel

and the director of this subcommittee for some questions, and then

I will be having some questions.

Mr. HALLORAN. Thank you. Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Leonard, Ms.

Kelly and Ms. Shaffer, as witnesses who actually were on a cruise,

could you describe for the subcommittee what you knew about security when you got on the ship. Was there written information

provided to you? Were there signs or pamphlets? What kind of security awareness did you have when the cruise started as opposed

to when it ended?

Mr. MULVANEY. We had no idea of the dangers involved in a

cruise, and it was only enforced after this incident, looking back on

it, that you see the shortfalls within the cruise industry. And I was

under the assumption that it was a safe environment. You heard

one of the Congress Members mention early on about a party ship.

What we actually went on was a family cruise vacation on a family

cruise ship. we didn’t go on a party ship, and——

Mr. HALLORAN. If as you are sailing and there was an incident,

you saw something wrong, maybe you smelled marijuana or

thought you saw a crime happening, was it clear to whom you

would report that? Was there somebody——

Mr. MULVANEY. No, no. Neither was there any education or any

literature on getting on the cruise ship, which if something was to

occur, also like a man overboard policy or whatever it may be, who

you actually notify or what went on, that was part of our confusion

and problem on the evening our incident happened. We ended up

ringing guest services. We didn’t know who to get in touch with.

Mr. HALLORAN. Mr. Leonard.

Mr. LEONARD. We had no idea about specific security issues. We

were lulled into believing that this was really secure, as is evidenced by the fact that we never took jewelry or anything valuable

when we went on a trip to Europe or anywhere else. So the jewelry

that my wife took, she took because we had been assured there

would be a safe in the room, this was a secure ship. I brought my

tux because we were lulled into this idea, seduced into this idea

there would be formal nights and there would be fun, and everything would be secure. Then, lo and behold, there was no safe, although the ship was completely refurbished a couple of months in

2004 before we got on it. It had been the Nordic Princess, then it

became the Empress of the Seas. So at least 30 to 40 percent of

the ship, according to the Guest Manager, Luis Martins, didn’t

have safes, and so it was a question then of going up for a half an

hour at least to Guest Security, waiting in a line to put anything

into the safe, and then waiting for another half an hour to take

anything out of the safe, and, frankly, we didn’t get on the ship in

order to be waiting on lines to put things here and there.

So we were very secure when after the burglary we reported it,

and then 6 hours later everything started to fall apart. They could

not secure the room and investigate for 6 hours.

Then when the Secretary Officer, Mr. MacLaughlin, came in, he

said that there should have been things done differently.

124

Mr. HALLORAN. But before the robbery, was it clear who Security

was on the ship? Could you——

Mr. LEONARD. No, no, absolutely not. I guess it is supposed to be

even after September 11th obscure so that terrorists are not aware

of how they might be surveilled, but I didn’t notice anything. The

only place that I ever had a sense that there might have been some

big, large guys looking, was in the casino. Other than that, I never

had a sense that there was anything. It was all very unobtrusive.

There was no sign anywhere. There was nothing in the cruise documents, although we are now absolutely convinced that there should

be a sign on every cruise ship, ‘‘Enter at your own risk,’’ and that

AAA and all other bookers should provide information that you

should be aware that a ship is not completely secure, and you can

be robbed or raped or brutalized, and that you might not have any

recourse because the company has protected itself by requiring you

to sue them in Miami, FL or in their headquarters, which makes

suing rather expensive.

Mr. HALLORAN. Ms. Kelly.

Ms. KELLY. Thank you for asking that question. I didn’t get a

real strong sense of security. They have you sign all these disclaimers when you get on. I am like, what the heck? I thought, well, we

are going to have some fun here. But, you know, even the paperwork that they have you sign is very intimidating.

I remember something about seeing something about a doctor

when I got to the room. I don’t remember if it was something posted or if I read it. My particular incident, when it happened, it was

the night before, and then when I woke up that next morning, I

was so traumatized, if I could have crawled underneath the carpet,

so help me, God, I would have. And I was afraid for my own safety.

So even though I had read or saw somewhere that there was a doctor on board, I would be damned if I was going to go to him.

So, in retrospect, even though I didn’t report it on the cruise line,

I am glad I didn’t. I think I did right. My instincts served me right

by just getting off there, and everything in my instinct said ‘‘Get

off and get out of there in one piece,’’ so that is what happened.

Mr. HALLORAN. Thank you.

Ms. Shaffer.

Ms. SHAFFER. I really can’t remember. That wasn’t my complaint, about the lack of security. It was the way it is handled,

their procedures of how they handle, and how they cover up, and

how they listen to you to find the loopholes to cover up what happened so that they continue to look good.

Mr. SHAYS. I am not clear by your response. They look for ways

to?

Ms. SHAFFER. They look for ways to weasel out of taking responsibility for helping solve the crime.

Mr. SHAYS. Can you give me an example of what you mean?

Ms. SHAFFER. Well, for instance, when I took my daughter 3 days

in a row, asking for an examination, a rape examination, and the

doctor would just sit and stare at me, and sit and stare, and stare,

and stare, and stare, and never anything—he said to me that I was

traumatizing my daughter.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Let me ask you this. Your daughter came in

to see the doctor, but she was requesting that she not be examined?

125

Ms. SHAFFER. No, she wasn’t requesting. She was just in denial

that she had been raped. She was——

Mr. SHAYS. Just so that I can see the scene.

Ms. SHAFFER. She did not refuse to be examined.

Mr. SHAYS. Was your daughter with you when you went in?

Ms. SHAFFER. She was with me.

Mr. SHAYS. Right, that is what I thought, but—so she was neither saying yes or no. She was just traumatized.

Ms. SHAFFER. She was just saying no, she hadn’t been raped,

that nothing had happened. And she was crying, but she was willing to be examined.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And he or she chose not to——

Ms. SHAFFER. He chose not to.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. HALLORAN. Mr. Pham, Mr. Carver, in sort of different circumstances, but if you could describe in a little more detail, the

problems with getting information from the company about, in the

case of your daughter and your parents? In a sense they had lost

precious cargo you had put on those ships. What was the explanation that was given as to where your loved ones were?

Mr. CARVER. When we finally got to them, they had disposed of

her personal items. If you look at their regulations they say they

are to keep items for 3 months. We are talking to them in 3 weeks.

We asked up front was there any video of Merrian, and the answer

was, ‘‘We only keep them for 2 or 3 weeks, and you got here too

late.’’

Mr. HALLORAN. Excuse me. I just want to be clear on that. They

actually had videos. They knew your daughter was missing. They

had videos and they destroyed the videos?

Mr. CARVER. Well, let me finish the story. In fact, that is what

happened. They denied to us that they had videos, and they said

they only keep them 2 or 3 weeks and we got there too late. We

sent somebody on the ship on November 4th, a detective. They said

the same thing. There was no review of the video concerning

Merrian, and we only keep them 2 or 3 weeks. But if you look at

the documents in my supplemental statements, on their stationery,

on September 23rd, Security is reviewing the videos. And if we look

at documents written that they wrote on April 9th, the videos are

not destroyed in 2 or 3 weeks, they are on a 30-day cycle. So in

other words, on the 26th day of a 30-day cycle, they were looking

at the videos.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you this. Did they say any of this in writing?

Mr. CARVER. It is all in writing.

Mr. SHAYS. So their own information——

Mr. CARVER. Yes. We have their own internal documents. They

are sitting on the table over here, where they are reviewing the

videos, which they said they did not review, and it is all documented. Very discouraging. And, of course, those documents which

we have brought, they are talking to the steward. Three times he

is talked to by the head of the hotel, saying, ‘‘Do not discuss this

with anybody. It is a serious problem.’’ And he is reporting that to

the management in Miami, FL.

126

Well, for us to finally get to that individual took us until January

16th to get his testimony, only after we had gone to court, gotten

court orders, because they were clearly setting up in the 3rd week

in September, the cover over, and they also discussed how they are

disposing of her items. Now, why would you dispose of items, a

brown manila envelope, putting them maybe in lost and found—

they don’t know what they did with it—why would you destroy it?

They knew who the passenger was.

Mr. HALLORAN. So you first contacted the company at what level?

Mr. CARVER. Well, we called Miami. Then a representative of

risk management came back to us the third week in September.

Mr. HALLORAN. And then what, and then the lawyers got involved? Because Mr. Leonard describes another kind of series of

people and offices he heard from. Did you hear from a number of

people in the chain?

Mr. CARVER. Well, we basically were talking to a woman named

Katie with risk management. She was the go-between, literally telling us lies for the whole time. She was the one person that everybody zeroed into. When detectives went to her in October, said,

‘‘Was there any incident on this ship that the steward have reported?’’ She said, ‘‘No, absolutely none.’’ There is a copy of a letter

that I wrote to the board of directors giving her quote to our detective. They wouldn’t even tell us the name of the steward. But she

was clearly, I can only say, lying to them, because in fact, they had

talked to them. There had been a hearing on the ship. They had

fired the supervisor for gross dereliction of duties, and she is pretending that nothing happened.

In a report to the FBI, dated September 30th, she makes a statement, ‘‘There was no Oscar, Oscar, Oscar emergency on the ship.’’

Well, there had been. They lost a passenger. They had had meetings, and yet that is what she is reporting to the FBI. It is my understanding, to write a misleading statement to the FBI is illegal,

to deceive them. That, in and of itself is a crime.

Mr. HALLORAN. It is called obstruction of justice in many places.

Mr. CARVER. That is what I said in my report.

Mr. HALLORAN. Mr. Pham, what was your experience?

Mr. PHAM. Well, I have very little to say, because after the ship

came back and they washed it, and they loaded the next group of

passengers and they said. Since then we heard from them only

once. The FBI concluded the investigation the end of August, supposedly couldn’t find any foul play. We’re still working on getting

the detail of that investigation, but pretty much, you know, I don’t

think Carnival even knew we were there. I don’t think they know

who we are. I don’t think that they know they have two passengers

that left with them, paid the full fare, never came back, I don’t

think so.

The one time I finally got through one time to the office of the

president of the Carnival Cruise Lines in Miami and talked to the

Customer Service Manager from the Office of the President, and

after 2 days, and she said, ‘‘Well, let me check with Legal before

I can talk to you,’’ and she got back, and now I learned a new term.

In the dictionary it is called ‘‘lawyer up.’’ Because that is exactly

all she cared for when she called me back, to say that, ‘‘Mr. Pham,

we couldn’t tell you what to do. We couldn’t tell you what hapVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
127

pened. Very rare. This never happened before.’’ Let me tell you, it

happened in December 2004. Somebody disappeared on one of their

ship. And they could have told me, ‘‘Well, this is what you should

do next,’’ and so on. They refused to acknowledge we were there.

You know what? Not a lot of people have the means to go after

these cruise lines. My parents lost. They worked very hard for their

money, and it is not fair for the State—and for all of us just to find

out the truth, we have to hire an attorney, we have to pay all of

that money to find out what happened to my mother and my father? That is not the America that we came to that we learned, and

so that is all I have.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just use your comment as just a matter that

I want to state for the public record. When we started this investigation because of George Smith and Ms. Hagel Smith, we wanted

to know what had happened and how they were treated. And in the

course of doing that, Mr. Carver came to our first hearing, and I

felt his story was beyond my comprehension, basically a father who

has to spend money to find out what happened to his daughter.

And all along the way there were breakdowns. It wasn’t that the

steward didn’t do his or her job. Was it a man or woman, the steward, do yo know?

Mr. CARVER. He was a man.

Mr. SHAYS. Did his job, and he reported it to a supervisor. And

then we are being told, well, basically, that was a mistake, and he

was let go, a serious mistake. You would think at that moment in

time, there would be just absolute full cooperation. You would

think almost that the head of the company would come on bended

knee to you, Mr. Carver, and say, ‘‘Whatever happened to your

daughter, we apologize. Now, how can we cooperate so that you

don’t go through any more pain?’’ Even in fact, obviously, Mr.

Carver, if your daughter had committed suicide, but that is irrelevant to your being able to get the facts you need.

So the point I want to make to all of you is, one, we want to help

each of you in the cases where it is still outstanding, get all the

information. We want to ensure that the cruise line fully and completely cooperates. Their failure to cooperate with you is a message

to this subcommittee that they have things to hide, which only

means that we will be more vigorous in pursuing this investigation.

Their willingness to cooperate with you and with this subcommittee means that we can work together and solve whatever problems

may exist.

So, one, I would want you to know that this subcommittee is asking publicly all the ships involved and the cruise lines involved to

fully, completely, without hesitation, without any reluctance, cooperate and ease your pain, and help you. But also in the process

they will help themselves.

Mr. Pham, the implication that we have received and read was

that your mom and dad committed suicide, that their shoes were

strategically placed, and it appeared like they just jumped overboard. There is nothing that you have told me that would indicate

they would have any reason to, particularly at an event like that

event. No note saying goodbye.

Mr. PHAM. As a matter of fact, I was in California a month ago

to open—finally, we got the death certificate. I filed a petition with

128

the Superior Court of Orange County, CA, and I got 5 percent

chance that a judge would approve. And instead of waiting for 5

years, I finally got the death certificate and opened the safe deposit

a month ago, and everything, everything—and not only that,

but——

Mr. SHAYS. Finish everything, everything, what?

Mr. PHAM. Everything was so normal, and they lived their lives,

and we have so many unfinished—Mom and Dad had so much unfinished business. One thing I didn’t verbally mention earlier, but

it is in the record, that last November my parents left—when we

left our mother land, our Vietnam, for 30 years, and it took them

30 years to finally have enough closure, enough closure, wanting to

go back to Vietnam. I travel there a lot of times for charity work

and business, and finally, in December 2004, Mom and Dad said—

I asked them again, I said, ‘‘Mom, Dad, are you ready?’’ And I could

tell in their voice that, yes, I am going with you next time.

Since then, 2 days before Mom and Dad boarded the flight to

Chicago for their vacation, and Mom was on the phone with me

and worried about some dumb thing, that, you know, when we arrive in Saigon in November, you know, if the car is big enough for

our luggage. For them, waiting that long and go back and see their

relatives, that is something that they would not want to leave this

Earth before doing that.

And I had the honor and privilege, bringing my parents back,

which had never happened to me. It is something that I will never

forget the rest of my life. You know, nine grandchildren, and on top

of that, after I opened the safe deposit box a month ago and saw

everything was normal, the last time my father went in that safe

deposit box was in December 2004, so nothing planned. I forgot—

I didn’t forget. It is in the record also—that we have a grandfather—we left our country without anything, and so family means

a lot to us. My grandfather is 94-years-old. He is laying in bed now

in a nursing home. He couldn’t move. He couldn’t speak. And I

have no idea what is going through his mind about what happened

to his children that never came back to him. Mom and Dad the

only people that took care of my grandfather, and now they disappeared, they are gone. And none of us live in California.

You know, we have so many things going for us that, you know.

Mr. SHAYS. So the bottom line to this is there was no indication

earlier on, no previous attempts to end life.

Mr. PHAM. You know what? If Mom and Dad did that—and they

are not that type—that would be the cruelest thing, to go on a

cruise, a mother’s day present, with your daughter and your granddaughter and left them. You know, my parents, we—I was waiting

for somebody to——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say you have the opportunity to say

whatever you want. I was thinking of your imagery of having to be

in the open sea with your parents leaving Vietnam and how dangerous that was, and the incredible, unbelievable circumstance that

finds you on the water again, where your parents are now missing,

and the way you appear to be treated. I just want to say to you

that we will ask whatever question we need to ask to give you an

opportunity to say what needs to be put on this congressional

record under oath, under oath.

129

Mr. PHAM. Well, Mom and Dad look over us all the time, and I

know they’re looking over me today, and since they left, and so we

have access to some information that’s very important, I’m sure, to

the cruise line, to everybody and to us, that the event happening

immediately after the discovery of my parents’ disappearance. And

so, there’s no way I could sit here, or anyone in this room could

sit here, with the exception of the representative from the companies that operate these cruise lines, to say that what kind of procedures you have in place, and did you follow those procedures, and

why didn’t you? Because, see, there’s no way for us to find out what

happened to Mom and Dad if they goof from the very next second

after they were told disappear. And I don’t know if they goof on

purpose, intentionally, unintentionally. We don’t know. And maybe

1 day, justice can be done to our family, where we can sit face to

face across and get the truth. And we’ve heard that word, the

truth, over and over and over from that side and from this side.

We want to know the truth. We can’t change anything unless we

know the truth.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Carver, let me just put on the record, because it will be stated outside this hearing, your daughter evidently had tried to end

her life at a previous time?

Mr. CARVER. Going back several years ago after divorce and—one

time.

Mr. SHAYS. So it is not your issue of whether or not she chose

to end her life, or in fact, did, it is the issue that once she was determined missing, you and your family should have been notified

immediately, and there should have been an effort first to find her,

whether or not she had chosen to, if that was the case. So I think

it is pretty much on the record. It is just an amazing story, both

of your stories are amazing.

Mr. Lynch, would you like some questions?

Mr. LYNCH. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me give you time to ask questions.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask all of you. I have talked with folks that have

been in this situation, and none of them approach the pain and the

experiences that I hear about today from all of you, but the nub

of this problem is there is no accountability, there is no liability.

The incentives for the cruise line to hide information and to conceal

information, and to not report, it is a financial incentive for them

to do that, because if people found out, it would hurt their business. So there is a disincentive for reporting. There is a gap here.

The FBI is not required, in a formal sense, to keep track of every

single—even though safety of life at sea gives jurisdiction, and the

maritime regs allow the FBI to exercise jurisdiction, the strength

of that jurisdiction and their authority often depends upon the

memorandum of agreement, the mutual assistance agreement with

the individual country whose flag is being flown by that cruise

ship.

It seems to me that at the very beginning, and I want to hear

your own thoughts on this, but at the very beginning we need to

have someone, someone needs to be responsible for reporting these

incidents, and there have to be grave consequences, grave conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
130

sequences, from the captain of the ship to the operator. There has

to be grave consequences when an incident occurs and it is not

fully reported to begin with.

In talking with other people, and trying to create this accountability, they have suggested different things to me, and I want to

hear your input on it. Some have suggested that because there was

no U.S. law enforcement on a ship, that there was really no accountability for a U.S. citizen. And people were saying to me, we

should have at least one officer on a ship. If they are calling on a

port in the United States of America, there should be a U.S. law

enforcement person on that ship.

Other people have said that when a ship returns and there is a

passenger missing, there should be immediate removal of that captain subject to the investigation, and that would be a serious consequence to the cruise ship line in having their captain removed.

Others have suggested, in taking children—and I know a number

of incidents have occurred with children—is putting actual tracking

devices on passengers when they come on the ship, so that in the

event that someone does go overboard, and a couple of witnesses

have said, we don’t know if they made a mistake or whether there

was some deliberate concealment here of the incident, and then

they were embarrassed to go back and admit they had made a mistake.

Also, I have heard in a similar case with some of the witnesses

here about these confidentiality agreements, and do we simply, in

part of our response say, where someone has gone missing, there

shall be no settlement that contains a confidentiality agreement

that puts a gag on innocent American citizens from reporting a

horrible wrong that has been done to them.

Again, going back to the reporting, make sure that it is mandatory, that it is reliable, and that people who are in your circumstance, my sisters, I have five sisters. They take cruises all the

time with their kids. They are nuts about it. But in doing something like that with your family, there should be a report card, a

report card of the ship line that you are traveling with, so that you

can—you know, they have it on the Internet quite a bit now, different companies, a score card, a consumer report on incidents and

people who have been—well, people who are very happy with the

service they received, versus people who are dreadfully disappointed with the way they had been treated as a customer, and

that is another mandatory, sort of shining a spotlight, an open air

type reporting requirement that could be available to people.

I want to hear your thoughts in terms of any of those ideas that

you think may be warranted, Mr. Carver?

Mr. CARVER. Well, we’ve proposed many items here, but there is

a simple solution that can solve the cruise line problem tomorrow.

There’s something called a board of directors of that cruise line,

and let’s take the case of Royal Caribbean. They are under the New

York Stock Exchange Rules. They have a fiduciary responsibility,

in my opinion—I’m not a lawyer—to protect the safety of the members of the crew.

Now, in the case of Merrian, there’s a letter sitting over there.

I wrote the board of directors. I gave them the depositions. I proved

the cover-up. Now, when you’re on the New York Stock Exchange,

131

after Enron, I don’t think you can clearly ignore those issues. You

can’t just push it down to somebody in risk management and say,

‘‘Hey, take care of Carver.’’ You have a fiduciary responsibility for

the safety of those passengers, as I see it as a non-lawyer.

Now, they could make changes immediately, and if in fact, they

realize that they have that fiduciary responsibility, they might act

a little bit quicker. They might take some steps they haven’t taken.

There’s a company called Enron that took a lot of time to cover up

the books, and the board said, ‘‘We didn’t know what was happening.’’ I think the accounting rules have changed. I’m not sure you

can do that anymore.

Mr. PHAM. You know, I found something very interesting a couple days ago. I went to the State Department travel Web site, travel warning. And there’s a couple warnings there I bet you a lot of

people in this room wouldn’t know. One is the spring break coming

up in the Bahamas area, and one is the spring break coming up

in Mexico. You know, that’s the duty of the State Department.

Now, why did I look up? Because after my parents’ disappearance, I worked a lot with the Bureau of Consular Affairs, try to get

presumption of death on the high seas document from the State

Department to help us with the death certificate issues. But, you

know, what’s the difference? If these ships leave our port, bring

U.S. citizens into international waters, to other shores and things

of that—and these incidents happen on these ships. And if they

don’t report it, if they don’t have to report it, if nobody monitor it,

they don’t have a—keep the statistics—they don’t have to do all

those things. Why there’s an exemption there? We don’t understand. So maybe you can take that into consideration. Thank you.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, sir.

Ms. Shaffer.

Ms. SHAFFER. Well, I would just like putting up a big sign when

you enter the ship, saying, ‘‘Enter at your own risk.’’ I think they’re

very dangerous. I think the statistics that they have are bogus, and

they don’t hold up. And it’s very dangerous.

What I would like to see is that the public, the general public

becomes aware of the dangers, and when you take a trip aboard

a cruise, that you’re informed of the dangers, and that there’s regulations put on children, curfews. Children should not be being

served. My daughter was 18 when we were on the ship, and she

was getting drunk every night in the disco. She was being served

alcohol. So when I was on the cruise, I felt perfectly safe, and so

I had no idea of the risks or the dangers, or this would not have

happened. I am not a liberal mom. I’m a very conservative mom,

and I pay close attention to my children, and this should have

never happened. I just blinked my eye, and there it is.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you.

Ms. Kelly.

Ms. KELLY. Yes, I would like to add a couple things. No. 1, I

think that idea of a microchip is just outstanding, just personally.

I mean I know this is an outrageous statement, and you’re probably going to think it’s outrageous, but I mean, there could feasibly

be a serial killer on one of these ships. Because they’re not reporting to one main data base, and when somebody gets terminated,

like in my case, and they just go back to work for another cruise

132

line, I mean you could have a very serious criminal on one of these

cruise ships. So anyway, I just really like the idea of the microchip

because I just think that’s a good idea as a tracking device.

Also, the U.S. Marshals, just to give you a little bit of background, I have 12 years in banking, and when I was a teller, and

I know this sounds simple, but we had these secret shoppers. So

when I waited on somebody I didn’t know if they were a secret

shopper and they were checking me to see if I was doing my job,

or if it was just a regular customer. I think by having U.S. Marshals on those ships, even if it’s random, I think it would be of

great importance because those bartenders, those—I don’t know

how many, 52, or how many other bartenders are on the ship, they

wouldn’t know if they were, you know, serving a U.S. Marshal or

if they were serving a Janet Kelly. So I just think that would be

huge. I think it would just totally raise the accountability. I just

think it would be awesome. So that’s just my thoughts.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Ms. Kelly.

Mr. Leonard.

Mr. LEONARD. I see that there are really two broad kinds of questions or issues. One concerns cruise line safety and the company’s

treatment of guests on the one hand and the threat of terrorism

on the other. Now, I think to some extent both would be somewhat

lessened as a problem if there was an agency to which the Congress directed the companies to provide all documented cases of

crime which could then be made available to the general population

through a Web site or which travel agents would be aware of.

Second, this would obviously require some sort of change in Federal law, because to some extent it seems the lack of accountability

is part of the reason why these things take place, and that lack of

accountability seems to be a byproduct of either the companies

thumbing their noses at Federal law, or simply that there is a legal

twilight zone where they can pick and choose what laws they will

follow.

Part of public disclosure would be to make sure that passengers

who have a documented case of a crime on shipboard get a copy

of their report and the security officer’s report, who investigates.

Now, the business about the key cards is, I think, rather crucial.

When my wife and I were in France in the summer of 2001, we

noticed virtually everywhere we were, when you gave a waiter a

credit card, he had a little machine, and he ran the card through

it right in front of you, gave the receipt, which you signed, and

your own receipt, right there and then, so that on ships that kind

of technology, which is well proven, should be used so your credit

card is never out of your hands when you use it on the ship. Remember, on a ship you are not in a hotel. You just cannot walk

away and go down the street.

Now, insofar as terrorism is concerned, I think there has to be,

obviously, some kind of tightening up concerning security, and this

is at the larger level, the macro level, but also at the micro level.

If you can get into somebody’s cabin because of a key card being

played with, then you cannot only steal property and personal identities, you can also place contraband inside that cabin, which might

go off, as it lands in Bayonne, NJ in the Port of New York, or it

is smuggled into the country by some unwitting guest on a ship beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
133

cause he or she doesn’t even know there’s something in his luggage. So the whole question of control of the key cards and making

sure that they are the least likely way to lose your security, that

anybody can somehow get into your cabin, has to be ensured. And

there is no reason why every bit of information to potential thieves

and others is on these key cards, telling them when you’re going

to dine, so if you know when somebody is going to go and eat, you

can know exactly when the person is not going to be in the cabin.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Leonard.

Mr. Mulvaney.

Mr. MULVANEY. I like the sea marshal idea, and we could charge

the passengers for creating employment. But I think the real problem lies with the DOHSA law, and that means accountability of the

ships. Some of the current laws have no incentive whatsoever to reform or to do anything——

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mulvaney, talk a little slower. Given that he is

from Boston, he understands you really well.

Mr. LYNCH. I could translate for you, Mr. Mulvaney. [Laughter.]

Mr. MULVANEY. I will go back to the start. The sea marshal thing

I like, and some of the other good ideas, but I think the problem

lies with the DOHSA law itself. The DOHSA law affords the cruise

industry too much blanket coverage. If you change this the ships

have an incentive themselves to enforce certain laws on the ships

and make sure that they no longer have that protection. Their insurance premiums naturally will rise. You know what I’m saying?

But they will certainly have a fear of going out and doing anything,

that if it ends up in U.S. court, they will be held responsible.

As far as somebody on board the ship needs to be in charge. If

we have the captain in charge, the captain works for the cruise

company. We’re going to have the fox minding the hen house. He’s

there to make a profit for the ship. In Mr. O’Brien’s specific incident, you had marked everywhere, ‘‘No alcohol served to minors.’’

You had it on the ship’s contract, no alcohol. It is the law here in

the United States, no alcohol. Yet the ship’s bartenders serve minors alcohol. We’ve heard that statement from another guest here

today also.

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. We have two more panels, but I do want to just ask

a few more questions, and I thank you for your patience.

Ms. Kelly, I am going to ask you some questions that I do not

know the answers to. I am not trying to prove your point or disprove your point, but I do want to understand. I don’t want to assume.

Ms. KELLY. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. You say that you were drugged. Was that documented that you were drugged, or you believe you were drugged?

Ms. KELLY. OK, both. Well, no. I tried to document it. I went,

and when I reported it to the hospital, I mean, it was a 9-hour

emergency room.

Mr. SHAYS. Talk a little slower.

Ms. KELLY. OK. It was a 9-hour emergency room visit. It was

very traumatic.

Mr. SHAYS. And this was right after you got off the ship?

134

Ms. KELLY. No. When I got off the ship, I got in a cab, I went

to the airport. And there, I think the realization of everything that

had happened, plus the effects of the drug, I was very sick, I was

very traumatized, so I was hysterical, if you will.

Mr. SHAYS. Were you with other family members?

Ms. KELLY. Yes, I didn’t have any family members, and I didn’t

really have any close, close friends. They were just neighbors and

acquaintances. So anyway, what I did is I tried to contact my counselor, because I had been seeing a counselor from when we had lost

our daughter.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Ms. KELLY. But I couldn’t reach her, and who I ended up reaching was my best friend from sixth grade, and she said, ‘‘Janet, get

on an airplane.’’ I told her what happened. I’m crying, sobbing. If

I would see somebody in an airport terminal like myself, I would

have been taking their hand and taken them to an authority. But

unfortunately, nothing was done at that point, because there I was

on safe ground.

Mr. SHAYS. But you can describe that you were somewhat in a

fog as this——

Ms. KELLY. I know I was drugged. Mr. Shays, I know I was

drugged, for a number of reasons. No. 1, I only had two drinks.

Mr. SHAYS. Was there anyone else that was with you that saw

you being taken away?

Ms. KELLY. No. But you know what? Interestingly enough, after

I was drugged and I came back—and what happened was, this is

all right before dinner. Like I said, I’m not a heavy drinker. I came

back to my cabin, and it’s weird how it is when you’re drugged, but

it’s kind of like you’re in a dream state. That’s the best way I can

describe it. I made my way back to my cabin, and I passed out face

forward on the bottom bunk, wasn’t even my bunk, and I was just

out cold.

But to answer your question, I know I was drugged because I’ve

read the effects of the drug, and I was very sick for 3 days after.

I probably only had one meal. I had severe diarrhea. I know I was

drugged. There’s just no doubt in my mind.

Mr. SHAYS. I hear you. It just helps if it can be documented.

Ms. KELLY. Exactly right, exactly right. No, I understand that.

I’m sorry. What was the rest of your question?

Mr. SHAYS. But you basically told me that——

Ms. KELLY. Oh, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. And there was no proof of semen or anything like

that?

Ms. KELLY. Well, you know what? Here’s the thing. If they had

it, they just dismissed it because of the fact that they said—see, he

admitted it. As a matter of fact——

Mr. SHAYS. Oh, he did admit it.

Ms. KELLY. The bartender admitted it, and he actually said, ‘‘Did

I hurt her?’’ This was the morning after. The girl I was with, one

of the gals I was with, went and approached him.

Mr. SHAYS. So what he admitted to was breaking company policy, but he did not—this was an employee of the—so company policy is that you don’t interact with——

Ms. KELLY. Oh, no.

135

Mr. SHAYS. So he’s admitting to breaking company policy,

Ms. KELLY. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. So grounds for dismissal, but he is not admitting that

there was a rape that took place, obviously.

Ms. KELLY. What he says, and what the FBI said, is that he said

it was consensual. He doesn’t deny that we had intercourse.

Mr. SHAYS. Boy, that would drive me crazy.

Ms. KELLY. So the thing that makes me crazy about the whole

thing is if it would have happened here, I mean, there would have

been repercussions. I mean he would have been prosecuted. I would

have made sure of it. But because of how—anyway, to answer your

question though about the hospital, I had called a rape counselor,

which I’m glad I did it because she told me what to do, and she

guided me. When I went to the hospital I was educated on rape.

I was like, OK, you have to take my blood, and you have to hurry

up, and there’s people having heart attacks and all this other stuff

going on.

Mr. SHAYS. May I ask you, well, the bottom line is you experienced what evidently a lot of college students experience.

Ms. KELLY. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. But you were older than a college student.

Ms. KELLY. But you know what? The unfortunate thing is that

drug, it leaves your blood system right away, and that’s why they

use it, OK. And it would have shown up in the urine, and for some

reason the hospital lost my urine sample. Had they had that, I

would have had proof, and so it is very unfortunate. But I did it.

I told them that they had to take my urine, they had to take blood.

I mean I totally knew what I was doing.

Mr. SHAYS. You didn’t have an adviser or anyone with you?

Ms. KELLY. An adviser?

Mr. SHAYS. You didn’t have anyone with you when you went to

the hospital?

Ms. KELLY. You know what? I had a co-worker that actually

grabbed me and said, ‘‘Let’s go.’’

Mr. SHAYS. She took you, but she was not——

Ms. KELLY. Yes. And then I had a call. My husband, who had

just had open heart, and here I had to tell him what happened,

just——

Mr. SHAYS. Takes a lot of courage. Thank you.

Mr. Leonard, I don’t have many questions for you because you

pretty much documented everything you went through. What you

document most, from my standpoint, is that you would not have

shown up in crime statistics, which is one of the problems that I

have. I don’t have much faith in the crime statistics.

So I just want you to know why I don’t have questions for you.

In part it was your professor-like thoroughness and assistance to

speak even longer than I wanted, but you covered the territory.

Mr. LEONARD. Well, frankly, I felt I had to because this would

the first and last time. I’m not planning to go on any——

Mr. SHAYS. What pleases me most is it’s the first time you smiled

all day today too. [Laughter.]

Because I mean, one of the things that you will go to the funny

farm with the incredible aggravation you have had to go through,

because, frankly, the crime was committed. All they had to do acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
136

knowledge the crime was committed. They couldn’t probably solve

the crime. You had a right to expect them to make a good faith effort. So all they did basically was stiff-arm you and add to your

misery, when in the end, taking the other tack would have maybe

gotten you back as a customer because you would have basically

said, ‘‘You know what? There was a screw-up and so on, but thank

you for treating me with respect,’’ and you obviously were not

treated with respect, and I am sorry about that, obviously.

Mr. LEONARD. Well, ordinarily one doesn’t——

Mr. SHAYS. Put the mic down a little bit so I hear you.

Mr. LEONARD. Ordinarily one doesn’t generalize from one specific

anecdote.

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Kelly, would you help him out because you are

really good at this. OK.

Mr. LEONARD. Thank you. Ordinarily one doesn’t generalize from

one specific example, but our case of this theft is a kind of classic

example of everything being done wrong, and the refusal of the

multibillion dollar corporation to simply admit that there might

have been some responsibility on the part of the ship company, the

personnel, and that the company accepts the possibility that a mistake might have been made. We’re not talking about the kind of

situations that have been presented here. This is horrifying. I

mean this was simply a relatively small grand larceny of our property, but in the grand scheme of things, for a multibillion dollar

corporation this is not even small potatoes.

For them to go out of their way to deny not only to me, but to

the Federal Maritime Commission, that we even reported the crime

on the ship, and we faxed this person, Betty Taillefer, the signed

statement—which by the way, when you look at it, because you

have a copy of it, at the end of their own form they have ‘‘retain

for 1 year.’’ So the probability is that this is a fairly common kind

of experience, and they jettison this stuff.

Mr. SHAYS. I can understand in one respect that if the FBI

doesn’t want to investigate a crime committed, a certain dollar

amount, the fact that the crime took place needs to be documented

in all thefts. The cruise industry likes to compare themselves to

towns, and if that is the case, when $100 is stolen, it is a crime,

and it is reported and there is this statistic. And whether it is

$100, $1,000, $5,000, $6,000, $10,000, it all needs to be reported.

Mr. Mulvaney, the bottom line is you were on board the ship; is

this correct?

Mr. MULVANEY. Yes, that’s correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And your experience was, one, you did not know who

to contact right away, correct?

Mr. MULVANEY. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. There is no phones periodically that say, ‘‘If emergency, call this number?’’

Mr. MULVANEY. No. When you first get on the ship the first day,

they do what they call a muster station, where they bring everybody down to the deck where the lifeboats is, and they explain to

everybody at that point in time what goes on in the event of a fire

on the ship or if you have to abandon ship on the lifeboats.

Mr. SHAYS. I mean if you are in a building and there is a fire,

you can pull the fire alarm, a warning, and people can get out. If

137

you are on a bus, you are on a subway, you are on a train, the bottom line is you have something to pull, you know where to go to

stop the bus or train or whatever. On a boat——

Mr. MULVANEY. There is a fire alarm system on the boat.

Mr. SHAYS. Fire alarm, yes. But if they have a fire alarm there

is no system that would enable you—if you saw someone go overboard—I was just thinking if I was just there and I saw someone

overboard, I wouldn’t know where to run to, but I have never been

on board a ship. So I am wanting to know if—my parents have

been on many and love cruising—but what I am asking is, there

was nothing that you were made aware of that if someone was

overboard, you contact this person immediately, and then they

would hopefully have a better chance of locating that person. They

don’t have such a——

Mr. MULVANEY. No, there was no procedure for the passengers

set in place, nor do I think there was any procedure for the staff

of the cruise line in place after the incident happened because they

seemed somewhat confused about the issue also.

Mr. SHAYS. We have been joined by Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica, I am

going to ask just two more questions, but do you have questions

you would like to ask as well?

Mr. MICA. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. It doesn’t have to be quick.

Let me go to Mr. Mica first, and then we will just close up.

Mr. Mica, you have the floor as long as you would like.

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a member of the full

committee, but not the subcommittee.

Mr. SHAYS. You are welcome and we appreciate you being here.

Mr. MICA. But as you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent the State

of Florida, and I came in a little bit late, didn’t have a pleasant

experience with my travel, even though I am chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee. [Laughter.]

But that is a matter for another hearing. [Laughter.]

Just one of my concerns. There have been some serious incidents

reported here, and tragedies reported, and it is a slow news day,

and they are picked up. I woke up this morning in Florida, highly

recommend it if you want to travel someplace, absolutely gorgeous.

But woke up this morning and turned on the news, and almost

every channel, the cruise industry. I was very concerned. I am concerned about the welfare of people who have had some sort of a

problem with a cruise experience, and I appreciate this hearing

paying attention to any of those problems, and maybe some improvements that may be necessary in reporting or whatever. But

coming from the State of Florida, it is one of our biggest industries.

We have millions and millions of people, hundreds of thousands of

jobs.

And I don’t think people should leave the hearing and think that

the cruise industry is not concerned, and in some way the cruise

industry or your experience is typical of the experience that millions and millions of people have had in cruises. There are unfortunate incidences. We have a summer place up in the mountains, and

people go camping. We have had people killed, missing, abducted,

raped, attacked in camping incidents, most of it national park service area that is patrolled by national park folks. I also don’t repVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00141 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
138

resent Disney, used to when I was in the State legislature. And we

have had incidents at all of our theme parks and the surrounding

areas and attractions, unfortunately, some of them even worse

than what has been described here.

Again, my concern is that this hearing doesn’t project the image

that this is something that occurs every day, or the industry is not

concerned about, again, some of the problems that have been

raised. The fact is that, again, we have lower percentages of incidents of any of the types of activity or incidents that you have described today here in the general population. Is that not correct?

Maybe we will go down——

Mr. MULVANEY. Like you, Mr. Mica, I am from the same area of

Florida, and I visited on many occasions Disneyland, Universal

Studios, all the theme parks and done everything else, and the security in place in all these standard land-based locations is far

greater and far exceeds anything which is——

Mr. MICA. I would have to disagree with you. I see it every day.

The only time I have seen the security that tight would be when

we had the President there a couple of weeks ago. Most of these

places hire part-time people or people who don’t have a great deal

of law enforcement. Most of them are not taking the hotel on the

high seas, in international waters subject to various laws, so I

would have to disagree with that.

Mr. Leonard.

Mr. LEONARD. In the absence of reliable statistics, how can you

be so certain that it isn’t far higher than what the cruise lines report when they wish to report it. We don’t have any idea. And

when a grand larceny is not reported to any law enforcement agency, I start to wonder what happens to smaller crimes.

Mr. MICA. Well, we do have, 305 crimes have been reported in

the high seas over the past 5 years. Do you think it is necessary

that we have some sort of official document for crime reporting?

Mr. LEONARD. Yes, precisely.

Mr. MICA. On each cruise ship?

Mr. LEONARD. On each cruise ship, reported to an agency.

Mr. MICA. I travel quite a bit. I have cruised quite a bit. I have

never seen an industry that solicits more comments from their customers or passengers or clients than the cruise industry, none. In

fact, they do everything but they harass you to get some response.

Mr. LEONARD. What’s the problem with reporting? If there is no

problem, then that would show up——

Mr. MICA. So you are suggesting a uniform, a question—I am

looking for something positive that we could do with the industry,

but that, of course, wouldn’t fit into any official reporting document. It would just be a volunteer thing. Do you think it should

be required?

Mr. LEONARD. Yes.

Mr. MICA. I mean required that the passenger fill it out.

Mr. LEONARD. Well, I am at the minimum of the opinion that

documented cases of crimes on ships should be reported by each

ship of each cruise line to a Federal agency and then made public.

That way the cruise line is safe.

Mr. MICA. I am not an attorney, and we have some attorneys on

the next panel, I guess, and I don’t know the implications of doing

139

this, again, the settings and the different ports and also the registration on most of these ships is——

Mr. LEONARD. But this is the Congress of the United States, sir.

Mr. MICA. Yes. We can pass a law, but is it enforceable, and I

don’t know that. I am not an attorney, but we do have a lot of them

around here, fortunately or unfortunately.

Mr. MULVANEY. Mr. Mica——

Mr. MICA. I want to get the other responses.

Mr. MULVANEY. I know. I just misunderstood what you said, and

when you said to me you disagreed with me, does that mean you

would advocate serving 15-year-olds alcohol at Disney World?

Mr. MICA. No, but we have instances across the board, where 15-

years-old and people under the age of the legal age are consuming

alcohol, not only on cruise ships and resorts, but throughout the

world. If you would travel to Europe or some other destination,

people drink without any restriction on age.

Again, my question, I am looking for any improvements that we

can make, and also ask the question about whether or not these

are limited instances, or you see that other areas of resorts, entertainments, have more or less or the general public is more at risk.

Ms. Kelly.

Ms. KELLY. Yes. I just want to add—basically, I totally disagree

with everything you have just said, but I think this is a very lawless environment. A number of these cruise lines are owned by foreign countries, so they don’t answer to any laws. They cannot self

police. They’ve done a horrible job of it. Have you personally been

on any cruises?

Mr. MICA. I have been on many, yes.

Ms. KELLY. So it is your experience that you just think it is a

wonderful——

Mr. MICA. As a matter of fact, let me make a response. Not only

is it a huge employer in the State of Florida, not only is it a great

opportunity for vacation and entertainment, I think the industry as

a whole has done an incredible job in taking what used to be exclusively the luxurious activity of the wealthy, the rich and famous—

less than half a century ago, cruises were pretty much limited to

people who had huge incomes or were very famous—and made it

into something that the average person can safely, reliably enjoy,

and that is the——

Ms. KELLY. Safely, I don’t think is an accurate word.

Mr. MICA. I am sorry. I didn’t interrupt you. But I think, again,

if you look at the statistical average—and we can take incidents.

I came also asking for any ways that we could improve the system,

and the gentleman next to you, Mr. Leonard, has recommended

possibly reporting or having some form of reporting. But again, I

think the industry has done an incredible job of taking this experience—let me just share with the subcommittee one experience on

a cruise ship that I went on, and again, Florida, we are very fortunate because you have cruise ports up and down, and you can access them relatively inexpensively, and enjoy a time with your family, and I was with my family.

But I was on a cruise ship, and what I just said was brought

home. I was walking down the hall toward dinner, and this gentleman approached me. And he was walking down the hall and he

140

had a tie, he had it around his neck. And he said, ‘‘Excuse me, sir.’’

He said, ‘‘Could you just help me for a second.’’ I was sort of taken

aback. He says, ‘‘I drive a truck and I’m from Iowa. I’ve never had

a tie on before.’’ He says, ‘‘I wanted to wear the tie to dinner, and

I don’t know how to tie it.’’

And at that point I thought, my God, here is an industry that

has allowed common people to have an opportunity to have a great

experience.

Now, today’s hearing doesn’t focus on all those great experiences.

It focuses on the rare exception. When you take 40 million people

who are passengers who have sailed on cruise ships. I am a strong,

unabashed supporter of the industry. They are a strong supporter

of me because I have always been a strong support of the industry.

If there are problems, I think what we need to do is correct those

problems.

Ms. KELLY. OK. That’s fine, and I’ve heard everything you said.

I just want to interject before I lose my train of thought, if you

don’t mind. There’s a couple of things. You’ve asked for recommendations. I don’t know if you were here earlier, but——

Mr. MICA. No, and I am sorry. My plane was really late.

Ms. KELLY. One of the things that we had suggested was that

passengers be required to wear a microchip or a band of some kind

for tracing. Another suggestion that came up was using U.S. Marshals, and I said even randomly, because it would raise the accountability to the employees of these ships. No. 1, I also want to

say too that most of these employees on the ship that I was from,

they were from other countries, so they are not American crew

members. They are coming in from other countries, Third World

countries, with different standards, different morals, like my assailant was from Jamaica.

Mr. MICA. Again, I think this hearing does highlight some of the

differences in, say, the cruise ship industry and other activities. As

to those recommendations, if I may respond, Mr. Chairman, first

the microchip, maybe some day, not today. It is almost impossible.

I have reviewed, as a senior member of the Transportation Committee, the security relating to cruise ships. I am not concerned

about what goes on on board relating to these instances, and the

passengers who are sailing, the typical passengers. My concern is

more of a terrorist threat. An incident in which a cruise ship is

used in that fashion and the failure of the U.S. Government, which

is a Federal responsibility, to adequately protect and secure both

the ports and the cruise ships. That is my concern, not focusing on

some of the, again, issues that this subcommittee is focusing on.

The second point, the U.S. Marshals. Again, I see very few industries that are more responsible as far as security is concerned. Let

me give you an example. I chair Aviation. The Federal taxpayer

right now underwrites the screening of every passenger in the

United States by some $2 billion. It was not intended to be that

way. The passenger was supposed to pay. They don’t. It comes out

of deficit spending. Right now we have a shortfall of $2 billion out

of a $5.6 billion program. In addition, we pay all the costs of the

U.S. Air Marshals. The plane I was just on had a U.S. Air Marshal

on it. The cruise ships pay for their own security.

141

In addition, they pay for their own law enforcement and security

because they are traveling on the high seas and they are responsible for law enforcement on the high seas, once you leave the U.S.

boundaries.

I think they have done an excellent job, one, in security costs relating to terrorism, in screening passengers, in screening—it is

very difficult—and I can tell you because I tried to do it—is to even

bring your own booze on board. They even screen for alcoholic beverages that are not supposed to be in people’s possession. I have

never seen that at any resort, entertainment facility, whatever, and

they pay all the costs for all of the above.

Ms. Shaffer, go ahead.

Ms. SHAFFER. Mr. Mica, who is responsible for the security and

safety of the passengers?

Mr. MICA. Well, the cruise ship is.

Ms. SHAFFER. Then why don’t they take care of business?

[Applause.]

Ms. SHAFFER. There you go. So I agree with everything you said.

The cruise ship, superficially it is——

Mr. SHAYS. Ms. Shaffer, I am just going to interrupt you. It is

important for us to have a sense of the audience, but this is a hearing, and we are going to really try to keep strict decorum.

I would like to know, just because I want to make sure you are

recognized, how many folks are here from the Cruise Victims Association? Just raise your hand if you are here.

[Show of hands.]

Mr. SHAYS. Well, we appreciate you being here, and I will spend

time after this hearing to talk with you about anything you want

me to know.

But I also want to say that Mr. Mica is one of the most respected

Members in Congress, and it is important that he share his views

with you, and that you are very candid with him. So this kind of

dialog that is taking place right now is probably more important

than the dialog you will have with me.

Mr. Mica, we truly appreciate you being here.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Ms. SHAFFER. Thank you, Mr. Mica.

Mr. MICA. I did come back to try to get some positive comments,

and you asked the question——

Ms. SHAFFER. I would like to continue my thought.

Mr. MICA. Well, again, you asked the question, who is responsible? And I said ultimately the cruise ship is for security on board

the cruise ship, and as I mentioned, they take on responsibility for

other types of security, port security, law enforcement on board the

cruise ship. So there are different aspects of that, just to respond

to you. Thank you.

Ms. SHAFFER. Well, superficially, the cruise industry looks great.

You get on board, it seems to be very Americanized. You do see security on board the ship. You feel completely safe, and it’s an illusion. It’s a false sense of security, and your industry would do very

well and would grow by adopting better protection and security for

the public.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I might respond too that, you know, some of security, even that the Federal

142

Government does is an illusion. I just sat in on a classified briefing

on aviation security on Thursday. It was a closed door hearing. I

get the results back periodically. We test our system for security

because it is a Federal system for aviation security. The failure

rate is pretty dramatic. In fact, probably most of you would fall off

the chairs if you understood how much of a failure that is, how

much money we have spent, and we spent a fortune. I told you it

cost us $5.6 billion, plus $2 billion in deficit spending, to put that

system in place that is not the kind of system that we should have.

Making changes is very difficult, something I work on every day.

I am here to look at how we can make the cruise experience an

even better and safer experience.

Mr. Pham.

Mr. PHAM. I do have a solution you’re looking for. You know, my

parents never came back from a cruise. There’s nine grandchildren

and five of us children, and I’m the only one here. It’s very hard.

It’s not easy for us to be here today. We’re here because we want

to be part of a solution. We were part of the problem that cost to

us now family, so we want to be here to become part of a solution.

While I’m speaking for myself, I think I can speak for some other

fellows of the new organization we formed, the International Cruise

Victims Association. We went through—we were wronged, and

that’s why we’re here to share the story.

We’re willing to sit down and work with the Congress and with

the people in the industry, and come up with a way to better improve, as you said, the experience, to better taking care of the victims, to eliminate what we went through, because if you look at

statistic, and everyone’s been saying statistics and compare and all

that, but, you know, you can’t compare a cruise to a city. How

about amusement park? How about Disneyland? Let’s look at that

percentage, because when I send my children to Disneyland, there’s

some expectation that I have. So let’s stop talking about a 3,000-

person, versus a floating city in the ocean. That’s totally different,

that’s apples and oranges.

Mr. MICA. My question, and I appreciate your comment and willingness to work with us, you described the problem as you see it.

What is the solution you recommend?

Mr. PHAM. The solution is if people sit down with us. Since we

founded this organization 2 months ago, we received hundreds of

e-mails from crew members, sharing with us their experience as a

crew member, what they think is right and wrong. We receive hundreds of e-mails from people all over the world, from Australia,

from England, from Canada, and what happened to them. Well, if

nobody listens, how can we fix the problem? Somebody has to listen, and we are willing to share that. We’re willing to sit down and

work together, and that’s my solution.

Mr. MICA. So far I’ve heard microchip of some sort, and like U.S.

Air Marshals, and then we had a required form for reporting, or

a standard form for reporting. Did you have a specific recommendation, Mr. Pham?

Mr. PHAM. Working together as a group, with the Congress and

us.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

Mr. Carver.

143

Mr. CARVER. I appreciate the opportunity. Earlier today in our

testimony——

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Carver, I am just going to interrupt. Did you set

this up as a lead to go right down the line? And you are a very

patient man. I thought you might jump in in the very beginning,

but you just timed it beautifully. So, Mr. Carver, you have the

floor.

Mr. CARVER. We delivered to the subcommittee today a 10-point

document of various changes to make to the cruise line industry.

We’re not going to change the cruise line industry, but if they were

smart, they would take these various items that we have listed,

and say, you know something? These makes sense. This will give

the U.S. public a good feeling about being on a cruise ship.

Would they cost much money? I don’t think they would cost

much money. So you’re asking for many suggestions, I have it. But

I want to give you another——

Mr. MICA. I have the list of these, did you make this part of the

record?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

Mr. MICA. Are there any other suggestions that you have?

Mr. CARVER. Can I just give another?

Mr. SHAYS. You can have the floor to talk about this, because he

asked you suggestions. You got three pages of suggestions, and if

Mr. Mica wants to go through it, that’s—I am going to ask you to

go through it afterwards.

Mr. MICA. Are there any other things that you think of that we

need to pay attention to that haven’t been raised?

Mr. CARVER. I have an analogy. This is kind of a different story,

but let’s say this is the Aviation Committee of the U.S. Congress.

And an airline came to this committee and said, we have a new

business plan. We’re going to license the company in Liberia because that’s very helpful. We don’t have to pay Federal income tax.

we’re going to staff it with Third World people, but we want to fly

out of New York City, we want to fly out of Miami, we want to fly

out of Los Angeles. Once that airplane takes off, hey, we got a

whole set of different rules. You may not understand them, but

trust us. Now, over the past few years we’ve only lost 28 passengers, disappeared. We’ve had a couple of hundred people raped,

but trust us.

Would you think the American public would allow that airline to

be licensed in this country to fly out of their major ports?

Mr. MICA. Well, again, we do have very similar situations in

aviation, and we do have many incidents, some reported and some

unreported. Just to show you the way things are changing, 54 percent of all the airline maintenance is done outside the United

States today, and as we speak, you have more and more international competition, and will have. In fact, that is on the front

burner today, of planes flying into the United States. One of the

problems I have as chairman is, sometimes we don’t have the same

protections for Americans, even flying on another carrier into the

United States. And I have gone and personally reviewed the security in cases such as the shoe bomber with Richard Reid, he had

overridden by the French police allowing him to board the aircraft

carrying explosives on his person in his shoe. So, yes, I face this

144

all the time. We don’t live in a cocoon, we live in an international

arena.

We could actually close down—and maybe that is what we

should do—is close down the cruise lines from docking in any

American ports. That would solve the problem, because they are

international and we don’t know everything that is going on with

them, as you said, for ownership. But would that really solve the

problem? And the answer is no.

Mr. CARVER. I can only answer it this way. If you were me and

had a daughter disappear from a cruise line, and it goes unreported and it is covered up, I think you would have a different

passion——

Mr. MICA. Again, each of you have a case in which——

Mr. CARVER. Here are suggestions, lots of suggestions.

Mr. MICA. I appreciate your suggestions that you have brought

forth, the positive suggestions because I think my intent in being

here is to look for positive things that we can do to make it safer

for everyone, and improve the system. So, again, I appreciate the

recommendations. Some of them may or may not be practical. We

have to look at them. And then we can take a safe industry and

make it even safer.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman was provided

as much time as he wanted, and I just wanted, Mr. Carver, for the

record to show that in response to suggestions, you provided a

three-page, single typed document from the International Cruise

Victims Association. It is thorough. It is thoughtful. You said background checks, create a main data base, reporting all terminated

individuals, employees, ensuring that the same employees will not

be rehired by another cruise line. (A) Tighten security checks and

screening of all employees. (B) Although the cost of a vacation

cruise may increase, reliable personnel should be stationed on all

decks at all times.

Then just a second one, international police and U.S. Marshals.

The international police force should be established at the expense

of the cruise line, connected to Interpol or another international police organization. (A) Such authority should not be affiliated with

the cruise line or its crew. (B) U.S. Marshals should be present on

cruise ships. (C) When a crime is not reported to the appropriate

authorities by the cruise line in a timely manner, substantial fines

should be imposed. (D) All crimes must be made public, not voluntary but mandatory. (E) Require protocol for filing any form with

incident, and to be immediately processed through specific channels.

This is an extraordinary document you have provided, very responsive. What I am thinking, you are dealing with the loss of your

daughter. You are dealing with the fact that you can’t get basic information from the cruise line. They have treated you as if you

were, in some cases, the perpetrator, not cooperated. It’s an outrage. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for dealing with

your grief, but also coming up with a very constructive document.

It would take me a long time to read this document publicly. All

of it will be for the record. It will be very helpful.

145

And I really believe with all my heart and soul that Mr. Mica

will appreciate this as well. He serves on the Transportation Committee. He can probably do more legislatively than I can do as an

investigative committee. I view him as your friend, and he has

voiced, obviously, concerns that this be an appropriate hearing, but

one where we get at the truth. You provided a wonderful document

on behalf of all of your members, so I salute all your members.

It is still the first panel—is there anything that you all want us

to put on the record before we go to panel two? Real quick, Mr.

Leonard. Put the mic close to you. Prove to me you can do that.

Mr. LEONARD. I have one specific issue to raise in the interest

of preventing terrorism. We noticed, my wife and I and others, foreign nationals, three and four from the same country, screening

passengers and their baggage on the ship in Bermuda. That should

never take place. Three and four foreign nationals from the same

country screening baggage.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Is there anyone else that would like——

Mr. LEONARD. I am not the only one who saw this.

Mr. SHAYS. Anyone else who would like to—yes, Mr. Mulvaney?

Mr. MULVANEY. Can I put the picture of the 15-year-old girl who

was killed in the record?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, we will put that in the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

146

147

Mr. SHAYS. How is she related to you, Mr. Mulvaney?

Mr. MULVANEY. Distant, through marriage.

Mr. SHAYS. It is very nice that you came to testify today.

Mr. Pham, I want to say to you that how proud I am that you

have become an American citizen. I am struck by how gracious you

are, how thoughtful you are, how patient you are. You lost your

mother and father. You love this country through and through, and

I love the fact that you are a fellow citizen, and I appreciate your

testimony more than you can know. I would say thank you to each

and every one of you, but the image of you coming on a small boat

to the United States eventually, is quite an image, and you have

contributed wonderfully to the work of this Congress, all of you

have, but I particularly want to thank you, Mr. Pham.

Thank you very much. We are going to go to the second panel.

In our second panel we have three panelists: Mr. Brett Rivkind,

Rivkind, Pedraza & Margulies; Mr. Ron Gorsline, owner, Security

Ocean Services; and Mr. Lawrence W. Kaye, Kaye Rose & Partners.

Before you sit down, I will swear you in, and that is probably a

logical way to do it.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Note for the record, our witnesses have responded in

the affirmative.

We attribute all three of you as experts on the cruise line industry. If you have in any way, just for the record, not so in any way

it colors what you say, but it is just important, whether you are

speaking independently or whether you have represented the cruise

line industry, whether you do now, in other words, just so we get

a sense of your perspective. And if we just run through that and

then take your testimony, Mr. Rivkind.

Mr. RIVKIND. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here. I

am a maritime lawyer for the past 23 years in Miami, FL, handling

cases mostly with the cruise ship industry. For the first 4 to 41⁄2

years of my career, I represented cases brought against the cruise

ship company. Since then, now I exclusively represent victims of

accidents or crimes aboard the cruise ships.

Mr. SHAYS. It is just helpful to know that.

Mr. Gorsline.

Mr. GORSLINE. My name is Ron Gorsline. I am the owner and operator of Secure Ocean Services. My background is I have worked

extensively in various different security areas, and I have worked

in the cruise line industry for the last 3 years. Prior to that I have

done work for the State Department as a security consultant on

various contracts to protect different entities within the Government interests overseas. And prior to that, I had a 20-year military

career in Special Operations in the Navy.

Mr. SHAYS. So do you represent the cruise industry, families, or

somewhere in between?

Mr. GORSLINE. I was asked to be here as an independent expert

to kind of balance things out, based upon my experience in doing

audits in the cruise industry for various different companies.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. And you had met in my office as well earlier?

148

Mr. GORSLINE. Yes, sir. I gave you a full brief on my experiences

with various different cruise companies.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Rivkind.

Mr. RIVKIND. Yes, Congressman Shays, I did forget to mention

I am the attorney for the parents and the sister of George Smith.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, that is important to put on the record. Thank

you.

Mr. Kaye.

Mr. KAYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressmen. My name is

Larry Kaye. I’m a maritime attorney. I’ve practiced maritime law

for 27 years. During that time I’ve been immersed in representing

cruise lines and the cruise line industry. I’ve also served as outside

counsel to the International Council of Cruise Lines, and I started

my career as a maritime attorney after a clerkship with one of our

chief Federal judges.

Mr. SHAYS. The bottom line is we have three experts in the

cruise line industry and maritime travel, and we appreciate all

three of you being here, and it is nice that you are so patient, and

that you heard the first panel and what they had to say.

Mr. Rivkind, we will let you start.

Mr. RIVKIND. OK, thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. We are going to do a 5-minute. We are going to roll

it over. I give a little bit more quarter to the second panel, since

they sometimes have to go through a lot listening to the first. But

we prefer, after you get in the second half, if you would bring it

to a close. So 5 minutes. Then we will roll the clock over for another 5, but finish before the 10.

STATEMENTS OF BRETT RIVKIND, RIVKIND PEDRAZA &

MARGULIES, P.A.; RONALD J. GORSLINE, OWNER, SECURE

OCEAN SERVICE, LLC; AND LAWRENCE W. KAYE, SENIOR

PARTNER, KAYE, ROSE & PARTNERS, LLP

STATEMENT OF BRETT RIVKIND

Mr. RIVKIND. OK. Thank you, Congressman Shays. Good afternoon. Again, my name is Brett Rivkind, and as I described, I am

a Miami maritime lawyer for 23 years. All of my work, almost exclusively at least, has involved the cruise ship industry and handling cases with the cruise ship industry.

I am honored to have been asked to testify today before the subcommittee. I understand the purpose of this hearing is to address

international maritime security, including law enforcement, and

law enforcement is an important distinction, as Congressman Mica

was talking about, terrorists and terrorism, and we are here, I believe, to discuss law enforcement on the cruise ships to protect passengers who actually board the cruise ships, which is a different

issue, and passenger security, as well as the investigations of these

incidents that occur to passengers, and I will limit my testimony

to those areas, and these are major areas of concern at this time.

Twenty-three years ago when I graduated law school and went

into maritime law, I was intrigued with the complexity of the jurisdictional issues and the foreign nature of shipping, and the complexities, and they made for good law school exams. Today, 23

years later, we are on the second hearing, still discussing complex

149

jurisdictional issues, 23 years later in a much more serious context.

These are not law school exams, these are issues that are greatly

impacting on the safety of our passengers on these cruise ships

that operate out of our U.S. ports.

Cruise ships have just boomed. In the 23 years I have been doing

this, the ships are getting bigger and bigger and bigger. Ships are

carrying over 2,000 passengers, 13 to 14 decks high, with 1,000

crew members from Third World countries, with very little or minimum background checks. All the ships now are flying foreign flagships. We’ve just read recently where a ship is being built that will

hold 5,000 passengers. This has to be of grave concern to us and

to the safety of passengers on board the ship with this tremendous

growth.

With this tremendous growth, we’ve seen an increase in the

number of crimes. The statistics really are not what’s important

here. You have significant crimes on cruise ships, and cruise ships

are confined environments, and it is easier to protect citizens and

prevent crimes from occurring in the first place on a cruise ship

than it is in a city.

I have always felt a concern for this industry which operates out

of the United States and carries millions of U.S. passengers each

year, yet has reaped the advantages of being able to incorporate in

foreign countries and fly flags of convenience, enabling cruise ship

operators to avoid many U.S. laws and regulations. I too am from

Florida and understand the significant of the cruise ship industry.

The foreign nature of the cruise ship industry, as I said, has resulted in a situation where the employment of the crew is almost

exclusively from countries outside of the United States. Many

Third World countries, many poor countries, and in my experience

over the years, although the cruise lines state that they have

agents to hire crew members in the different countries who may be

responsible for some type of background check, many crew members save for years to pay a fee under the table to these agents to

secure an employment letter to come and work on a cruise ship

that are carrying our U.S. passengers, with no background checks.

It’s been necessary to discuss the foreign nature of this cruise

line industry because it is the nature of the beast, which leads us

to the questions that Congress is addressing for a second hearing

already.

It’s apparent from hearing these issues discussed today, and from

the hearing that was held previously in December, that there is a

big void or gap when it comes to the laws or regulations governing

the cruise ship industry. That does impact upon the safety of a passenger who decides to embark on a cruise with one of these foreign

incorporated, foreign flag cruise ships.

It’s time to closely look at this industry. U.S. citizens should not

have to rely upon the cruise ship industry itself for protection

against criminal activity aboard a cruise ship. A U.S. citizen should

not have to rely on the industry itself to adopt and implement their

own internal standards governing crime on board the ships, especially when the bottom line of the industry is profits, billions of dollars in profits.

I heard mentioned earlier, and I would indicate that I am an attorney in a case, class action case involving a cruise ship that delibVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
150

erately went into a storm to maintain an itinerary, and I heard

that mentioned earlier by the panel, and I would just mention that

as I do have some background in that case too, and some information.

The cruise ship industry attracted much more public attention in

the mid 1990’s, not that they wanted to, but due to an outbreak

of Legionnaire’s Disease, reports of sexual assaults on board the

ships and how they were being handled by the cruise lines, as well

as violations of the U.S. environmental laws.

The violation of the environmental laws led to numerous felony

convictions and millions of dollars in fines being imposed. Some of

the felonies that the cruise lines pled guilty to involved falsifying

official ships’ logbooks, which were referred to by the crew members as fairy tale books; destroying evidence and providing false

testimony to a grand jury, and tampering with evidence. The U.S.

Government and the U.S. public were lied to about environmental

matters. Yet this is the same industry that currently U.S. citizens

rely upon to, ‘‘voluntarily report crimes,’’ as well as to voluntarily

implement adequate security aboard the ships, and to adequately

conduct investigations of any allegations of crimes aboard their

cruise ships.

What we have learned today from listening to the victims from

this great organization that has been formed, is that these stories

are a result of the nature of the beast, of an industry that regulates

itself, that conducts its own investigations on board the ships, and

that has an incentive not to honestly and accurately report or investigate crimes. You can say all you want, ‘‘We report a crime, we

don’t have to, but we do, and here are the statistics,’’ but it doesn’t

matter.

You need to know when they reported it, how they reported it,

what happens before it’s reported, what happens before any U.S.

authorities get involved, and what do these statistics really mean

if we don’t have adequate classifications of the crimes, definitions,

like we in the United States, where we have index crimes, we have

uniform definitions of what constitutes a crime, methods of reporting, collection of that data sent to a centralized agency, and we can

then say how much crime is there in each particular city throughout the United States and each county. We cannot do that in the

cruise ship industry.

If a passenger reports something as stolen, and the cruise line

decides, based on their own internal investigations, to say it’s just

a missing item, you don’t have a crime there. These statistics cannot be relied upon.

I’ve heard the suggestions made by the International Cruise Victims organization. I’ve gone over those, and they are very good suggestions. One of the main things I believe is that you have an industry investigating their own crimes and accidents that they may

be held accountable for in a civil setting, and there’s something just

inherently wrong with that.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivkind follows:]

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Rivkind.

Mr. Gorsline.

STATEMENT OF RONALD J. GORSLINE

Mr. GORSLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon or

evening, as it is right now. My name is Ronald Gorsline, and I’m

the owner of Secure Ocean Services, LLC, and I thank you for the

opportunity to be present to testify as an expert witness in the subject of maritime security as it relates to the cruise industry.

My company is a small company providing internal compliance

auditing services for security programs in the cruise industry. Our

job is to act as an honest broker while conducting internal audits

and marking recommendations to correct program shortfalls, and

identifying program strengths, as we identify them in our findings.

Today I am testifying about security practices, training, qualifications, jurisdiction of foreign flag vessels as incidents may occur

on board those vessels. My testimony is not intended to point fingers as to cause, or add speculation on a company’s conduct, but

rather to clarify process and procedures as required by law.

In the United States and in the International Maritime Organization, there are rules that govern how the security program is set

up aboard ship. For the United States, we are governed by 33 CFR

part 101, and Part 104, specifically 104 for ships. International

Maritime Organization adopted a regulation called the International Ship and Port Security Facility Code [ISPS], Parts A and

B. Those are the cornerstones for the security programs on board

ships.

The officials who are responsible for enforcing such laws on

board the cruise ships ultimately is the master of the ship. He is

the law enforcement authority while a ship is at sea and under

way. The master overall is responsible for the vessel as shown, and

is governed by regulations Part 104 CFR 33, 140.205 in the U.S.

Code, and by the ISPS Code, Part A, Section 4.10 in the International Code. And at all times, the master of a ship has the ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of a ship, even at security level 3. A master may seek clarification or amendment of instructions issued by those responding to a security incident or a

threat thereof, if there is reason to believe that compliance with

the instruction may imperil the safety of the ship. That’s his job.

The overall structure, as reflected in my testimony, gives you a

brief breakdown of how it can be looked at in a picture. You have

a company that has a company security officer, who is ultimately

the program manager for the security program in the system. On

board the vessel you have the master, who is the ultimate authority, and you have a vessel security officer. The vessel security officer is responsible for security on board the ship, but he reports to

the master. If an incident occurs on board, the vessel security officer is the point to address the problem on board. The master is responsible overall for the execution of the process.

The company security officer is notified in that process, and then

they consult on how to address the problem, upon which the company security officer notifies the law enforcement entity or agency

that is to be the investigating authority.

163

Training overall, what is available on cruise ships for security as

far as technology and application of those items as a security plan

is considered security sensitive information, so I can’t go into specifics on ships’ numbers or anything like that, but I can give you

a general idea.

There are metal detectors, both walk through and hand wands.

They have x-ray machines. They’re experimenting with new trace

detection technology. They’re looking at microchips. There is training on all of these items that are out there. Alarms and weather

decks in certain areas where the passenger is not authorized to be

working as far as the line handling area, forward section, chain

locker and those areas.

They have a swipe card system that is attached to an ID photo

that was taken upon check in, and that ID photo is transmitted

into the system, and then every time somebody swipes their card

to come on board it is confirmed by visual biometrics of who they

are.

Modern vessels today are basically totally automated. Those

cards are used to access, as was identified and spoken to earlier in

the first panel, to basically handle your accounts, access in your

rooms and everything else. The older vessels have a swipe card system for identification purposes, and normally you’ll be issued a key

for the room if they don’t have the automatic key locks.

Personnel training. I’ve enclosed in here in my testimony and I

won’t go through each line item. Each position on a ship, as identified by both U.S. and International Code, what the training requirements are for each position. The companies have to meet that.

That training is done. It is logged and it is entered into the training records as individuals are carried on board the ship.

As I said earlier, you have the master, the vessel security officer

or the ship security officer under ISPS Code. You have those individuals that their primary responsibilities is security, and then you

have those individuals who have secondary responsibilities in security. They have varying different levels of degree. Then after all

that is said and done, there’s a secondary training process where

companies set up to do report writing, handle issues that come on

up as far as techniques and circumventing security techniques and

doing crime scene collection of evidence, and then packaging it and

turning it over to that authority once they report on board to do

the investigation.

The special maritime territorial jurisdiction of the United States

has been expanded to include places outside of the jurisdiction of

the Nation when those offenses are against the Nation of the

United States as part of U.S.C. Part 18, and among those offenses

is special maritime territorial jurisdiction of the United States are

the crimes of murder, manslaughter, maiming, kidnapping, rape,

assault and robbery. That comes under all Title 18.

As stated earlier, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is the investigating entity under maritime code, and the Coast Guard captain of the port is overall responsible for those items in the port

when a ship is stateside the United States.

The policy is a single industry standard that requires allegations

of on board crime be reported to the appropriate law enforcement

authorities with vessel calls on U.S. ports of crimes involving U.S.

164

citizens would include the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They

are the responsible authority to do that.

The companies, the industry as a whole has a zero tolerance for

crimes on board committed on board vessels. If crimes do occur, the

appropriate law enforcement authorities will be called to investigate, to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. The cruise industry continues to cooperate with authorities to ensure that the

perpetrators of crime are brought to justice. This is a requirement.

As previous testimony in December 13, 2005, the agreements are

in place with the membership of the ICCL companies, and the flag

states addressing communications with the lead agencies to investigate all cases once reported.

In addition to the above, trafficking of illegal drugs and narcotics

is included and is also investigated by the Customs and Border

Agency.

While on board the vessel, the vessel security officer and the ship

security officer will refer to the incident report procedure to collect

evidence, interview witnesses, assemble the report, package all material to be turned over to the investigating authority upon arrival

in the next port. Additionally, the company security officer will be

notified of the incident and give direction to the VSO and coordinate actions with the master and the VSO and the appropriate

agency. In the event forensic evidence is to be collected of a scientific nature, then ships doctors will more likely be pressed into

service to administer such things as rape kits to confirm a complaint.

Personnel training and capability will vary from company to company. Some companies have their own academies to provide this

training. Other companies will subcontract their training out to an

appropriate training authority that can do that. Others will have

people come on board and do what they call training programs. But

training is occurring. They have to meet these guidelines.

In short, on the jurisdictional issues on the flag vessels, I really

don’t want to go into that too deeply because I’m not a lawyer. I

do know this, that foreign flag vessels are flag states. Flag states

are contracting governments who signed up to the IMO and adhere

to the ISPS Code in addition to their own laws. Flag states also

have their own recognized security organizations that are referred

to as RSOs. The RSO in most cases is a class society designated

by that flag state as a verification arm to ensure that the ISPS

Code is being followed by the ship or the company that is flagged

under that flag. The RSO will ensure the ship flagged has a security plan that meets the ISPS Code. The RSO ensures the international ship security certificates, issues them on out for the flag

state, and ensures that the vessel will have an IMO number of registration, fly a flag of that nation. Examples are Bahamas, Panama

and Liberia. The foreign flag ships avoid U.S. domestic maritime

policy and taxes.

The United States isolates domestic policy from international

through the Jones Act. Domestic policy requires that you have to

build at home, crew at home and own at home to carry cargo between U.S. ports.

Mr. SHAYS. I need you to finish up here.

Mr. GORSLINE. I’m going to do that right now, sir.

165

In short, there are five areas that need to be addressed here that

verify the Congress has the ability to act upon requirements to

enact laws to meet the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

One, there is a territorial jurisdiction if a ship enters or acts

occur within a territory of a particular country, then that country’s

laws apply.

Two, under the ‘‘national’’ theory, the country where any alleged

crime perpetrator resides has jurisdiction over the matter involving

a perpetrator.

Three, the nation with the custody of any alleged perpetrators of

certain types of crimes can claim jurisdiction under the universality principle.

Four, under the ‘‘passive personality doctrine,’’ the Nation where

the victim resides can exercise jurisdiction over a matter.

Five, any country whose national interests are affected by an incident can assert protective jurisdiction.

I hope I have answered your questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gorsline follows:]

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Mr. Kaye.

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. KAYE

Mr. KAYE. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mica, I thank you again

for inviting me to testify today. I am very proud of my representation of the cruise industry over the last 30 years, but I’m even

prouder of my role as a son, brother, husband and father of three.

There is nothing that I can say to detract from the tragedies that

these families who have testified here today have told us about,

and I want to begin by extending my deepest sympathies to each

of them and their families.

Hopefully, the information I’ve been invited to provide will assist

them and you in understanding the legal obligations that currently

govern this industry, and that’s my sole purpose in being here. I

commend you and the subcommittee for taking the time to explore

them.

The fact is that we don’t have a very complex system of laws governing cruise ships. It may seem that way if you’re confused about

it, but our U.S. criminal jurisdiction on cruise ships does provide

a very high level of protection to Americans traveling anywhere in

the world. It starts with the U.S. Constitution, which states in Article I that Congress is authorized ‘‘to define and punish felonies

committed on the high seas.’’ That is exactly what our Congress

has done. Over the years it has asserted our national power over

some 20 different categories of crimes in what is referred to as the

special maritime jurisdiction of the United States. These include

everything from sexual misconduct to robbery and theft, to terrorism and murder, and everything in between.

On U.S. flag ships—and there are some today in fact sailing in

Hawaii—our Federal Government has jurisdiction over those

crimes anywhere the ships operate, involving any soul on board.

On foreign flag ships, our criminal jurisdiction in these crimes extends to anyone in U.S. waters, Americans on the high seas on

those vessels, or even Americans in foreign waters if that voyage

on that foreign ship starts or ends in the United States. It is as

simple as that.

In my 27 years of legal practice I have never heard of a situation

where an agent of the FBI has been denied access to a foreign flag

vessel seeking to do an investigation. I’ve just never heard of that

happening. Usually there is a report made. There is a request to

do the investigation, and with open arms, they board the ship.

These same Federal maritime statutes ironically have been incorporated into the Federal aviation scheme, and as Congressman

Mica no doubt is aware, the Federal criminal laws that apply to

international aircraft boarding passengers in the United States, incorporate by reference the Federal crimes that apply in the special

maritime jurisdiction. So Congress was so satisfied that scheme

was clear and comprehensive enough that it simply rolled it over

into the aviation industry.

We know there are 31 million passengers, 10 million a year approximately in the cruise industry. There are 72 million passengers

a year in the airline industry boarding foreign craft in U.S. airports.

181

Even though cruise ship passengers, I think we can all agree, are

much safer from crime than inhabitants of even small cities cross

the United States, because of these Federal criminal laws, they

have the protection of the FBI as their enforcement resource. On

land, where these crimes are much more prevalent, victims are relegated to the protection of the local police station. Crimes on cruise

ships can and have been prosecuted under the full panoply of our

Federal court system, including nationwide subpoena power over

witnesses and evidence, national and international extradition, and

a worldwide investigative capability second to none.

I’d like to turn now to crime reporting because I think this is an

issue that has sadly been very misunderstood, perhaps even by the

attorneys that are advising some of the people who have suffered

these tragic losses. The fact is that regulations on the security of

passenger vessels were passed by this Congress in 1998, and

amended in 2001 and 2002. They expressly requires all ships, regardless of registry, sailing to or from a U.S. port, to report any

felony that occurs in a place subject to U.S. jurisdiction to the FBI.

Now, as we’ve just seen, places subject to the U.S. jurisdiction include the high seas and even foreign waters of other nations when

an American is involved. About 85 percent of the North American

cruise industry are voyages out of U.S. ports, Florida, California,

Hawaii and Alaska. For the 15 percent or so of cruises that don’t

touch a U.S. port, the cruise lines, nonetheless, still report all felonies involving Americans to the FBI. That is where the industry’s

zero tolerance voluntary reporting policy kicks in, and that is in addition to the mandatory requirements.

Now, even so, on January 10th of this year, immediately after

this subcommittee’s last hearing, the International Council of

Cruise Lines arranged a meeting with the FBI, Coast Guard, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and others. The purpose was to

discuss a thorough review of those reporting procedures to ensure

a consistent and uniform protocol, so that every agency interested

in a particular class of matters would receive whatever report it desired.

I also want to add that in checking the airline industry, despite

the fact that there are seven times the number of patrons flying

on international carriers from U.S. airports, and despite the fact

that the same Federal crimes apply on aircraft, there is absolutely

no requirement legally for airlines to report any crimes to anyone.

The statistics of crime in the cruise industry are reliable because

of the mandatory reporting, and they show that cruise ships are remarkably safe. Out of the more than 31 million passengers carried

over the past 3 years, passengers and crew I should say, there were

178 total claimed sexual assaults, 24 missing persons, excluding

the 5 who were rescued or found, and 4 robberies. When you factor

in how many of the incidents involve passengers, it works out to

less than 4 claimed sexual assaults per million carried, which ironically, happens to be the exact same statistical chance of a person

being struck by lightning. I was surprised to find that out myself.

The numbers translate into 1 reported robbery for every 8 million

carried; 12 of the 24 missing persons were tragically determined to

be likely suicides, and I am not including Mr. and Mrs. Pham in

182

that number, one an accidental fall overboard, and that leaves 11

truly missing out of 31 million.

This is by no means to minimize these occurrences because even

one such incident on a cruise is one too many, especially if it were

your loved one.

Briefly, I want to outline that U.S. civil jurisdiction on cruise

ships also gives passengers as high or higher protection than patrons on land. It’s another reason why the cruise industry has

every incentive to ensure that their ships are safe. United States

and even foreign passengers have very broad access to U.S. courts.

If the cruise line is based in the United States, as is every major

line of the ICCL, a U.S. form for resolution of their grievances

must be provided. By Federal statute, if the ship even touches a

U.S. port, any provision of the ticket that weakens the right to a

trial or tries to limit damages for negligence is legally void.

I can tell you that all cruise ships today have security teams

with extensive military of law enforcement backgrounds. Closed

circuit cameras, x-ray screening, computerized door locks that

record all entrances into cabins, computerized ship access identification systems that match passenger and crew photos to the individual boarding, rape kits, strict segregation of passenger and crew

areas, non-fraternization policies, no guest policies, security

rounds, and zero tolerance for crime are commonplace in the cruise

industry today.

Until the FBI or other appropriate authorities begin investigations, cruise lines provide the same or better response to potential

crimes as their shore-side counterparts, but like airlines, hotels,

restaurants, theme parks, resorts and the like, they neither have

the expertise, nor the legal authority to perform criminal investigations or prosecute crimes. So they rely on the responsible authorities to do so, but the next port of call is typically less than a day

away, and the ships are in constant radio communication with the

authorities, and follow any and all instructions given.

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kaye follows:]

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Kaye. I thank all three of you for

your testimony.

We will start with Mr. Mica, and since there are only two of us,

what we will do is we will do 10 minutes, but then you can have

another 10 minutes, and another.

Mr. MICA. Thank you. I don’t know if I will take that much time,

Mr. Chairman, but I appreciate all three of the witnesses in this

panel.

I made a full disclosure before. I am not an attorney, although

I am a Gator like Mr. Rivkind. Although I never went to law

school, I have tried to practice adopting and enacting some laws

from a different side of the aisle. But, Mr. Kaye, you seem to indicate from your testimony and you seem to be fairly expert that

there are laws in place and there are laws that protect U.S. citizens, and I think you also tied it into the aviation industry so that

the American traveler who gets on a cruise ship cannot be under

the impression after this hearing that they are left in some lawless

state.

Are these laws adequate then and in place?

Mr. KAYE. Absolutely.

Mr. MICA. That is a beautiful answer. OK.

Mr. Gorsline, from some of the other things we have heard, it is

like nobody is in charge on a cruise ship, but I think you outlined

that, in fact, there is a real pecking order as far as law and enforcement. We have heard that there are laws that govern, that

protect American citizens. On the cruise ship, then, the captain is

the chief officer, and he has the authority in international waters

and is required to obey international laws and the other pertaining

laws. Is that correct?

Mr. GORSLINE. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. MICA. Then you went down the chain of command, so there

is a chain of command.

Mr. GORSLINE. Yes, sir, there is a chain of command.

Mr. GORSLINE. I am not that familiar with cruise ships. Mr.

Chairman, I think that Mr. Rivkind—and we might want to correct

the record because I heard his verbal testimony was different from

his testimony that he submitted to the subcommittee. He said,

‘‘The foreign nature of the cruise ship industry has also resulted in

a situation where the employment of crew is almost exclusively

from countries outside the United States, including poor, undeveloped, Third World countries.’’ That is his statement that he submitted for the record. Is that correct, the one I have up here? But his

verbal testimony, if we go back and check the record, was a little

bit different. He said that almost exclusively the crews were Third

World—let’s say. I tried to copy it. Third World countries, giving

a different impression that the whole crew is basically a bunch of

Third World folks that do not really know what is going on.

I am not that familiar, again, with the industry, only what I

have seen. Aren’t most of the cruise ship captains and the key staff

that you outlined, Mr. Gorsline, aren’t they from sort of developed

countries like Italy and Greece predominantly? Would that be——

Mr. GORSLINE. Sir, in my experience on the ships that I have

surveyed and done audits on, the operational staff, including chief

200

officers and everything else, yes, they are either Norwegian,

German——

Mr. MICA. Are they from Third World countries—now, the registry may be different, like you may have Liberia, Bermuda. I don’t

know where they register. Again, I can only go by my observation,

but for the record, aren’t most of those people who are in charge

and responsible, as Mr. Kaye has outlined, for actually executing

the law, they are not from Third World countries, are they? Would

that be—I mean——

Mr. GORSLINE. In my experience, sir, that would be correct. The

senior officers on board——

Mr. MICA. Mr. Kaye, do you have any knowledge? I mean, the

ones I have seen—and I have talked sometimes—sometimes I get

invited to meet the captain. I have only met Greeks, Italians, British.

Mr. KAYE. Norwegian.

Mr. MICA. Not Third World countries. Norwegian, yes.

Mr. KAYE. French.

Mr. MICA. Scandinavian.

Mr. KAYE. Italian, French, United States.

Mr. MICA. Are you aware of any cruise ships that have their people in command from Third World countries, either of you? I would

ask for the record.

Mr. GORSLINE. I have not witnessed any, no, sir.

Mr. KAYE. I don’t think I can identify any.

Mr. MICA. Thank you.

You know, I think you said also, Mr. Rivkind, was it your testimony before Congress that statistics are not important? I wrote

that down. You said statistics are not important?

Mr. RIVKIND. I would like to address that, of course, your question, but I would like to get back——

Mr. MICA. No. Did you say in your testimony before this subcommittee that statistics are not important?

Mr. RIVKIND. I don’t think statistics should be focused on the

way they are with this industry and——

Mr. MICA. OK. All right. I am——

Mr. RIVKIND. I would like to make a comment——

Mr. SHAYS. Just 1 second——

Mr. RIVKIND. I would like to make a comment——

Mr. SHAYS. Hold on.

Mr. RIVKIND. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Because, Mr. Mica, you have no limit to time, I do

want to make sure the witnesses respond, and I am eager to know

what his answer was. I do not want to take you from your thought,

but allow him to just finish.

Mr. MICA. He testified—in fact, I wrote it down before I went

back and read something else. He said, ‘‘Statistics are not important,’’ and I have a little quote, and I have R, which is Rivkind.

The others are a G and a K. So what——

Mr. RIVKIND. I am ready to respond.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, and I would like to know your answer to his

question.

Mr. RIVKIND. Yes, I think in the context of what we are discussing, as was mentioned at the last hearing, when I heard an FBI

201

official, a Coast Guard official, and a U.S. Navy official here in

these hearings say that the statistics provided are meaningless,

and I heard that. I attended the last hearing, so I think that——

Mr. SHAYS. In the context of this, just to make sure, because I

do not want to exaggerate, meaning in the context that they cannot

be certain they are accurate.

Mr. RIVKIND. Exactly.

Mr. SHAYS. That was the basis. They cannot certify that they are

accurate because they are being provided—no, let me just finish.

Just because you were not at the hearing, and I just want to make

sure the record is clear. Because based on the fact that they are

voluntarily provided, that was the basis. And that is what we are

trying to determine——

Mr. MICA. Well——

Mr. SHAYS. And let me just continue, because you will have your

time. There was indication afterward that the FBI may have felt

they overstated that statement, that there is some meaning to it,

but they cannot guarantee their validity. That was their basic

thrust.

Mr. MICA. OK. Well, see, again, I am not an attorney. I just pick

these things up here. He said in testimony before that statistics are

not important. But someone handed me this article after you said

that and said it—and I get misquoted in the press all the time, and

I think this is a better—I mean, it is a statement I want to enter

in the record, which I think is important, that Mr. Rivkind has

said. I think we need honest statistics, and we should—if we require it under the law—this is in a Miami Herald article dated

Sunday, February 12, 2006.

Now, I raise that because, Mr. Kaye, you told me there was a reporting requirement. So is there or isn’t there a reporting requirement? I don’t know. Can you tell me, Mr. Kaye?

Mr. KAYE. There is absolutely a reporting requirement. They are

found in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations, beginning at

Section 120.

Mr. MICA. OK. So that would provide us with some honest statistics? Is there any other way? You know, can we use chains, prods,

electrical—is there some way to get more honest statistics? Is there

something—the other thing, too, I was sort of wondering. And,

again, also, one thing for the record, Mr. Chairman, and also Mr.

Rivkind, just for the record, Mr. Rivkind made the comment and

referred to me, a Member of Congress, and my comment and took

it—and I want to clear it just for the record, just so that it is clear,

that somehow I as a member did not understand the difference between security and law enforcement as it might apply to cruise

ships.

Just for the record, I wanted it clarified that, you know, I am not

the smartest guy in Congress, but I do know the difference, and I

did express my deep concern for all of those who had some incident

which, in fact, they related before this committee. All of them were

tragic, and I expressed my concern about security. But for the

record, Mr. Chairman, and for Mr. Rivkind’s information, I expressed my concern, my personal concern. I thought I had disclosed

that I was chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee, a senior member of the Transportation Committee. My concern is the failure of

202

the Federal Government to provide adequate port security, not just

for cruise—and I should elaborate that for the record—also for

cargo vessels and other maritime vessels, and the terrorist threat.

So I do have concern about people who have experienced a horrific incident, wherever it is. I just wanted to be allowed, Mr.

Chairman, just to provide that commentary for the record.

Mr. Rivkind, just a question here. I understand you represent

the International Cruise Victims Association. Is that it? Did you

start it or you represent them?

Mr. RIVKIND. I am acting as legal counsel for them.

Mr. MICA. OK. Do they pay you a salary or you do it——

Mr. RIVKIND. No, sir.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Pro bono? And how many people belong

to this association, do you know?

Mr. RIVKIND. It is growing in number each day. Kendall Carver

would have a better idea of the exact number. He is the president

of the organization.

Mr. MICA. So you don’t know how many victims are represented?

Mr. RIVKIND. Currently, I don’t want to give you a number that

is not exactly accurate. Kendall Carver would be better for that.

Mr. MICA. All right. Now, you have a law practice, and I was

reading some of your history, a great history in legal aspects of, I

guess, maritime litigation. Today, most of it, though, would be described as in suits against the cruise industry or people who might

have some cruise industry interests. You represent people, passengers and other folks, who have been injured or have some problem with the cruise industry. Is that correct?

Mr. RIVKIND. That is correct. My first 41⁄2 years I represented

cruise ships only. I am proud to say that all I do is represent injured victims.

Mr. MICA. Over a 23-year period, the last 19——

Mr. RIVKIND. Yes, sir.

Mr. MICA. Well, again, I come from Florida, and I just see what

I see on TV. Again, I don’t know that much of what is going on.

One of the problems we have in Florida, of course, is the proliferation of suits against everybody. I mean, you get up in the morning

and, you know, if somebody looked at you cross-eyed, call this number and you can sue.

One of the things that concerns me is the proliferation of attorneys, particularly in Florida, around the cruise industry now suing

the cruise industry. In fact, I don’t know, maybe you have heard

this. I saw people actually passing out little flyers and legal cards

at some of the ports. Have you heard that is going on?

Mr. RIVKIND. I did not——

Mr. MICA. And these are—I have to qualify. That is, you know,

like let’s sue—has anything gone wrong with your trip or your

cruise? Would you like to sue? Have you heard of that? Again, I

have heard some. I have seen a little, just the trips I have seen.

Mr. RIVKIND. I would like to respond. First I would like to say

I am in the middle of a trial, and a lot of these comments sound

like many of my jurors about tort reform and the necessity of tort

reform, and I can see where your position is on that. I also understand, as you have made clear, you are a great friend of the cruise

203

ship industry, and I do sue them, have for many years, and I am

proud of it.

If people are at the ports handing out cards or flyers or anything

like, I don’t know——

Mr. MICA. But you don’t do that and you don’t advertise for those

kinds of cases, do you, publicly?

Mr. RIVKIND. No, sir—in what sense? You are talking about——

Mr. MICA. Well, handing them out is one thing, but do you advertise that, you know, if you want to sue a cruise ship or just that

kind of litigation, that is your bag?

Mr. RIVKIND. I do not actively advertise my services.

Mr. MICA. OK. And, again——

Mr. RIVKIND. I am word of mouth. I do not even have at the current time a major Web site advertising my services.

Mr. MICA. I don’t want to embarrass you——

Mr. RIVKIND. I get my cases through word of mouth.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. But have you made a lot of money from

suing the cruise industry? I mean, hundreds of thousands, millions

a year?

Mr. RIVKIND. I am proud to say that based on my legal abilities

and taking cases with a lot of credibility against the cruise line industry, and thank God, you know, there are a lot, a lot of cases

with a lot of validity and credibility against the cruise line industry, and that is the problem.

Mr. MICA. I am sure that——

Mr. RIVKIND. Maybe if they cleaned up their act, you know, it is

a disincentive for me to be here and I wouldn’t be making so much

money.

Mr. MICA. Well, from the description you gave, as the industry

gets bigger, those ships get bigger, you will have plenty of opportunity, from what I have heard.

Gentlemen, just a couple of closing questions. Again, I come from

Florida. I am familiar with some of the different tour industries,

resort industries. I don’t know of any industry that has the security

measures both, say, entering a resort, exiting a resort, that the

cruise industry has. I mean, I have seen it. They take your picture.

They verify. They check it. Is there any industry—when we went

to see—with the President, they did wand us, but we did not have

to show our ID or anything. Are you aware of any tourism industry

that does that? Aviation I know does not do it. The airlines do not

do it. We do it with the people that check actually your picture and

ID—this is kind of ironic. They are probably some of the lowestpaid people and they are not TSA or Federal——

Mr. KAYE. I am not, Congressman. My——

Mr. MICA. Are you aware of anyone——

Mr. KAYE. No, and I would add that in the cruise industry, cruise

operators are required to give passenger manifests to the government so that they can do a pre-screening against criminal

watchlists. And crew are screened in the same manner in order to

get C–1 visas to work on cruise ships so that there is—you know,

we know who you are before you get on.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Gorsline.

Mr. GORSLINE. I don’t know of any other industry either, sir. It

is pretty thorough.

204

Mr. MICA. Well, I am just trying to get an ID for pilots and crew

of an aircraft. Have you ever seen a pilot ID? It looks like something that comes out of a Cracker Jack box. Now, we do have a new

one coming online, but it does not have even the things that are

required of a passenger getting on a cruise ship, and that is wrong.

I do not want to justify that.

Well, Mr. Chairman, just a few questions. I appreciate your forbearance and I yield back.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you——

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have not been to my office.

I got off the plane, the late plane, and I would like to ask a unanimous request that the record be kept open for a period of at least—

is 2 weeks OK? Is that a problem?

Mr. SHAYS. That is——

Mr. MICA. A period of at least 2 weeks for additional questions

to be submitted to some of the witnesses.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Happy to do that. In fact, we will not be having another hearing—yes, sir?

Mr. RIVKIND. May I say something to Congressman Mica before

you leave, since I understand you are leaving?

Mr. MICA. I don’t think the——

Mr. RIVKIND. There are three areas——

Mr. SHAYS. No, Mr. Mica, seriously, if you are going to leave, let

the gentleman have his say.

Mr. RIVKIND. It will take a couple minutes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, no, not a couple of minutes. Make it quicker.

Mr. RIVKIND. He made three statements that I consider——

Mr. MICA. Mr. Rivkind, excuse me. I do not have the time. I am

a Member of Congress——

[Audience groans.]

Mr. RIVKIND. A fellow Gator, you made an attack in three

areas——

Mr. MICA. No, Mister——

Mr. RIVKIND [continuing]. On what I believe is my credibility,

and I would like——

Mr. SHAYS. Hold on a second, guys. Hold on.

Mr. MICA. Since when does a witness——

Mr. SHAYS. Hold on.

Mr. RIVKIND. I just want to respond to three areas——

Mr. MICA. I was going to ask——

Mr. SHAYS. Would both gentlemen please suspend?

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Just suspend a second. We have allowed you 15 minutes to ask any question. You do not have to stay while a witness

speaks, so you are free to leave.

Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, under the—may I?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. MICA. Under the rules of the subcommittee, under the rules

of the House, you have been most generous in giving me 10, I think

a total——

Mr. SHAYS. Fifteen.

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Of 15 minutes. Under the rules and procedures of regular order of this subcommittee, of which I have been

a member for some—going on my 14th year, my time has expired.

205

I was merely going to ask you if you would grant enough time either from your comments—I have no further time, but I would ask

your request to——

Mr. SHAYS. No, let me just be——

Mr. MICA [continuing]. Give the gentleman an opportunity before

I left, before he interrupted me.

Mr. SHAYS. No, the bottom line is you have no time limit. You

have got——

Mr. MICA. Well, again, I yielded back, but, again——

Mr. SHAYS. OK, sure. Thank you.

Mr. Rivkind, if you would like to say something, and then I have

a lot of questions I want to ask.

Mr. RIVKIND. Yes, there are three things that were mentioned

that I did not get to respond to and I think I was unfairly attacked

about. One was the comment about hiring crew members from

Third World countries. It is true that the officers tend to be not

from what we would call ‘‘Third World countries,’’ but most of the

other crew members are. There is a major cruise line that does hire

many of their security personnel from the Philippines, which last

that I knew of constituted a Third World country. At depositions

they admit that most, if not all, of their crew members below officers are hired from Third World countries.

Why is that important? Because we are talking about crimes on

board ships. Most of the reported crimes, unfortunately, are crimes

committed by crew members, most of the ones that are reported.

Most of those from cabin stewards and the type of crew members

that are accused of these crimes do come from the Third World

countries, and that should be a concern of the Congress because,

as I stated on my experience, it seems that those type of crew

members can get a job on a cruise ship very easily. They buy the

employment letters. There are very little background checks, and

we have heard from another witness today——

Mr. SHAYS. What is your next point?

Mr. RIVKIND. The next one was statistics. When I say that the

statistics aren’t important to me, when I hear a comment that we

cannot rely on the statistics, that they may have some meaning but

they may not be accurate, and we know that statistics can be manipulated, in my opinion they aren’t important. We have a problem

here, an obvious problem, and that is what I meant in the context

of saying statistics were not important.

Mr. SHAYS. As you are a lawyer, probably a better choice of

words rather than ‘‘important’’ is they may be misleading. OK.

Mr. RIVKIND. Thank you, Congressman. And then the last one

was I did not in any way, shape, or form try to say anything about

your intelligence, Congressman Mica. I am sure you are a highly

intelligent, schooled individual. You did mention earlier that you

were concerned more with terrorism and port security than law enforcement on board the ships, and I was just trying to make a distinction because what we are talking about here is not all these

treaties and these international laws that deal with protecting

ships from terrorism, but actual onboard law enforcement, and that

is what I meant by that comment, and I did not mean any disrespect with that comment.

So thank you.

206

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, and let me just thank Mr. Mica for being

here, because he has added to the work of this committee tremendously, and there is no one I frankly respect more. Thank you.

Mr. Kaye, first off, I appreciate your testimony. You are the only

one that has told me it is simple, and it may very well be, so you

got my attention up front. We wrote to the Coast Guard after our

last hearing, my staff member, Dr. Palarino, and he wrote to the

head of liaison for the Coast Guard, in an e-mail dated March 6th,

and he said, ‘‘Michael, I have a lawyer telling us that passenger

vessel operators or security officers of vessels embarking and disembarking passengers from U.S. ports are to report to the Coast

Guard and the FBI any felonies committed on board a cruise ship.

Is this correct? Because this is not what was reported to us at the

last hearing.’’

The response from Commander Michael Lodge, ‘‘The industry

has initiated a self-imposed requirement to report such incidents;

however, there is no Federal law or regulation, nor is there any

international treaty or customary law that requires such a report.’’

Nick responded to that—Dr. Palarino—‘‘Michael, you guys are the

experts and I believe you, but what about the CFR cited? Am I not

reading it correctly?’’

Response from Commander Lodge: ‘‘33 CFR 120.220, ‘that occurs

in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,’ while

some crimes are covered under the special maritime and territory

jurisdiction of the United States, 18 U.S. Code Section 7, this limitation would not reach all vessels and all crimes.’’

So what are you saying and what is he saying, and how do we

connect them?

Mr. KAYE. OK. Well, I guess what is most important is what the

regulation says, and I have it in front of me. Section 120.220(a),

which is entitled ‘‘What Must I Do to Report an Unlawful Act and

Related Activity,’’ and it states, ‘‘Either you or the vessel security

officer’’——

Mr. SHAYS. And who is ‘‘you’’?

Mr. KAYE. The shipping line, the ship owner.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. KAYE [continuing]. ‘‘Or the vessel security officer must report

each breach of security, unlawful act, or threat of an unlawful act

against any of your passenger vessels to which this part applies or

against any person aboard it that occurs in a place subject to the

jurisdiction of the United States.’’ And then elsewhere it defines

‘‘unlawful act’’ as a felony.

Mr. SHAYS. What is the penalty?

Mr. KAYE. $6,700.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. To the cruise industry?

Mr. KAYE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So why when we were meeting with the—when we

had the FBI and the Coast Guard, they don’t see it the way you

see it?

Mr. KAYE. Well——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say and preface it by saying that says

to me there is something more to the story.

Mr. KAYE. I will give you my most honest answer. I wasn’t at the

last hearing——

207

Mr. SHAYS. I want your least honest—no, no. [Laughter.]

Mr. KAYE. You will always get my most honest answer.

Mr. SHAYS. I will get your honest answer. There is not a most

honest.

Mr. KAYE. I wasn’t at the last hearing. I don’t know the expertise

of the witness who testified. I did review in detail the transcript

or Mr. Swecker, and I did notice that when he was asked about

extraterritorial jurisdiction on cruise ships, he initially stated,

‘‘This is not my area of expertise.’’ And that is a quote from his

transcript.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough.

Mr. KAYE. I can also tell you that the people at the seaports, like

the gentleman quoted over here who is in charge—it is the blue

board to the right, the middle one, the special agent in charge of

the Florida seaports, he seems to be satisfied that the reporting is

very thorough, and I can tell you, in California, where I reside, the

FBI is fully aware of the obligation to report. And when someone

other than the cruise line or its officer reports, they become very

irritated because the report under this regulation is supposed to

come directly from the cruise line.

Mr. SHAYS. So if the theft is under $10,000, it is reported?

Mr. KAYE. It is not necessarily reported unless it is a felony. Recall that these regulations define ‘‘unlawful act’’ as a felony. So

that——

Mr. SHAYS. I thought theft—so an $8,000 theft is not a felony?

Mr. KAYE. It is not a felony, sir. A felony kicks in at $10,000. In

addition, there is a January 2000 memo from the FBI to the cruise

industry, which you may hear about from some of the cruise line

representatives, that was disseminated that specifically directed

the cruise lines to report thefts only in excess of $10,000.

Mr. SHAYS. When the cruise line industry makes a comparison to the public sector, if someone steals $5,000, that is reported and

it is statistically part of a community’s record, correct?

Mr. KAYE. On land?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, on land.

Mr. KAYE. If a person reports the theft, I assume so, yes; just as

if I assume that if a person——

Mr. SHAYS. But that wouldn’t be reported on a ship?

Mr. KAYE. If the person chose not to report it?

Mr. SHAYS. No, no. I just am trying to understand statistics—you

know, frankly, I want to say I have no dog in this fight. But what

I do react to is when I feel like I am not being told the truth or

that I am steered this way when, you know, if I was more knowledgeable, I would go in this direction. You heard the first panel,

and I think I have faith that what they told me about how they

were treated was accurate subject to not being convinced of that.

Every one of those stories raises a question about the sincerity of

the cruise line industry, frankly. So my antenna is up. I am suspicious.

So then we hear statistics that say, you know, there are only so

many of a particular category, and then 10,000 passengers decide,

and then they compare it to a town. Well, you know, a town just

does not have people living there for a week. So when you divide

the 52 weeks into the number of passengers, you get to a commuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00211 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
208

nity more like 200,000. Then I think, well, in a community of

200,000, you actually have policemen, and you actually have people

who are trained in a variety of detective work. And so then I start

to draw comparisons, and then all of a sudden the comparisons

don’t hold because the security people are not necessarily trained

the way some would be trained in Darien, CT, or New Canaan, CT,

with 20,000 people, 23,000, 30,000, or whatever, or my city.

So I am just trying to explain to you that I am trying to sort this

out. We have now the Coast Guard saying there are certain requirements that they don’t have to report, and we have you citing

the regulations. I want to make sure, because you are under oath,

that you are totally comfortable with giving me the impression that

reports are required, because we will have another hearing and we

will invite you back if the information pushes us in this way when,

in fact, you did not tell me the rest of the story.

So one part of the story is that—and you said ‘‘felony.’’ It has to be $10,000 or more. If you had $8,000 stolen from you, would you

not be outraged that was not part of the record?

Mr. KAYE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So technically, the comment about a felony is

significant, but then I have to know the rest of the story. That is

$10,000 or more. And so what I am asking you is do you think

most of the crimes would be under $10,000?

Mr. KAYE. Most——

Mr. SHAYS. Crimes. I didn’t say ‘‘felony.’’ Most of the thefts would be under $10,000.

Mr. KAYE. Yes, most of the alleged thefts, I think yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, not alleged thefts. Thefts, whatever they are.

I mean, because there are thefts, not alleged thefts. There are

thefts. You become alleged when you try to put a number to it, but

you and I will both agree that there are thefts on board, and you

and I would both agree that probably most of the thefts—not alleged thefts but most of the thefts are under $10,000. I am not

playing a game with you. I am just——

Mr. KAYE. No, but I can’t determine something is a theft until

a law enforcement authority or a court determines it is a theft.

Mr. SHAYS. Don’t be a lawyer here. I am just——

Mr. KAYE. No, I am just being honest.

Mr. SHAYS. No. Are there thefts under $10,000?

Mr. KAYE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. They are not alleged thefts. They are thefts.

Mr. KAYE. Some of them are alleged thefts that——

Mr. SHAYS. Some are and some aren’t.

Mr. KAYE [continuing]. Are proven not to be thefts.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s forget the alleged thefts and let’s talk about

thefts.

Mr. KAYE. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now, all I am asking you is: Would it be your

testimony that there are more thefts under $10,000 than more

thefts over $10,000? That is an easy answer. The answer is yes.

Mr. KAYE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Now, then the question is: Shouldn’t that information be provided? Wouldn’t I want to know, if I was on a cruise

ship, that I could have a $5,000 theft or a $2,000—I am going to

209

be pretty unhappy if someone—if I decide this trip is costing me

$2,000 or $3,000, it is a great week, and then I have $3,000 stolen

from me. In my own mind, that cost me $6,000. That is not a good

deal.

So what I am just trying to say is: So the rest of the story is your testimony, anything over $10,000 has to be reported, alleged or not,

or actual, any alleged has to be.

Mr. KAYE. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. And my point to you is: Would it not be important

for all statistics to be provided but that the FBI may not want to

or choose to investigate something that is under $10,000? That is

another issue. What I am trying to do is sort out where we go.

Mr. KAYE. Yes, and I guess the question I am left with is where

would you draw the line. If it is a pair of sunglasses, I mean, these

are the types of things that are allegedly stolen on cruise ships. Oftentimes they are lost. Sometimes they are stolen. And so where

would you draw the line? I agree that at some place a line needs

to be drawn, but people may differ as to where that line should be

drawn.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. KAYE. But I think the cruise industry would be happy to

draw the line wherever they are asked to draw the line.

Mr. SHAYS. I think that is true. Now if someone breaks into my

house, is that a felony?

Mr. KAYE. Yes. Burglary, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. So if someone breaks into my room, is that a felony?

Mr. KAYE. With force, yes, I believe it is.

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t care if it is with force. How about a key?

Mr. KAYE. I am not an expert in criminal law, so I am searching

my criminal law class 30 years ago.

Mr. SHAYS. But I think you know what——

Mr. KAYE. Potentially, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. I think you know where I am going.

Mr. KAYE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. I am just——

Mr. KAYE. I think there is an element of force involved, which

is, you know, what I am trying to explain.

Mr. SHAYS. Well, if someone broke into my house in Bridgeport,

CT, where I live—and everybody knows I live there—I am not

going to care whether they broke a window to come in or they were

able to pick the lock or whether they were able to find a key, because maybe one of the workers who worked at my house gave

them the key because I gave them the key. I don’t really care. I

don’t have a cleaning service, but if I had a cleaning service who

had a key and somehow that got—I would still expect my police department to take this crime seriously and investigate.

Mr. KAYE. Sure.

Mr. SHAYS. What we are being told is if it is $10,000 or more,

it gets investigated; if it is $8,000 or less than $10,000, it does not

get investigated by the FBI. They have drawn the line.

Mr. KAYE. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. So who investigates?

Mr. KAYE. The cruise industry will investigate it, and they will

make a record of it, in my experience, and the passenger, if they

210

wish to pursue it further, can take it up with the FBI. There is jurisdiction over theft under 18 U.S.C. 661 below $10,000. Absolutely,

the FBI has jurisdiction over thefts below $10,000.

Mr. SHAYS. You were here when Mr. Leonard testified about his

theft.

Mr. KAYE. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. What was your reaction?

Mr. KAYE. I really didn’t have a reaction.

Mr. SHAYS. Why not?

Mr. KAYE. My reaction was——

Mr. SHAYS. I had a reaction. I think probably everybody in this

room had a reaction. But why wouldn’t you have a reaction?

Mr. KAYE. My reaction was, to be honest, why wasn’t it reported

to the authorities by the Leonards.

Mr. SHAYS. As opposed to what they did?

Mr. KAYE. In addition to what they did. If they felt that the

cruise line wasn’t reporting it, why didn’t they report it?

Mr. SHAYS. You know, my reaction was, My God, this guy went

through 100 ways to try to get the attention of the cruise industry

and the line, and they just basically gave him a stiff arm. That was

my reaction. And I would have thought, as someone representing

the cruise line, you would have said to me, ‘‘This is not a good reaction on the part of the people I represent. This guy deserves to be

treated better.’’ That is what I would have thought you would have

felt.

How did you feel, Mr. Gorsline, when you heard that?

Mr. GORSLINE. My personal feeling, sir, is that the situation warranted some action. Not having been involved with it, I really can’t

comment on whether that action was appropriate or not. You know,

just on face value from what I heard, I would have sought out additional avenues to get compensated, you know, figure out what had

happened and get my report taken care of.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Rivkind, how did you react?

Mr. RIVKIND. I reacted the same way you did, Congressman. I

thought that, you know, it was inappropriately handled by the

cruise line, and it shows, even if there are procedures in effect, that

they don’t get followed.

Mr. SHAYS. So what we have had is three witnesses that lost

family members; we had one witness who was raped, allegedly—

and I am hesitant to put the word ‘‘allegedly’’ because I would want

to give her the benefit of the doubt on that—and we had a young

girl who was given lots of drinks and went overboard.

I would like each of you to walk down how you reacted to each

of these testimonies. Let’s start with you, Mr. Kaye. How did you

react to Mr. Carver’s testimony?

Mr. KAYE. I think what happened to Mr. Carver was absolutely

horrible and inexcusable.

Mr. SHAYS. Was the firing of the supervisor—was he the one responsible ultimately, in your judgment?

Mr. KAYE. I think he was one of the people responsible.

Mr. SHAYS. Who else was responsible, in your judgment?

Mr. KAYE. I think the cruise line was responsible morally to

make sure that notification went out and that there was a followVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00214 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
211

up. Unfortunately, the line apparently never became aware of the

situation.

Mr. SHAYS. But when they did become aware of it, did you see

them as part of the solution or still part of the problem?

Mr. KAYE. I honestly don’t know enough about the case to answer that. I don’t know——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, let me just talk hypothetically. Do you think

they should provide him the information he is requesting?

Mr. KAYE. Depending on the information, yes. I don’t know what

information he requested, and I don’t know what information was

not given.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Well, he testified about some of the information.

Maybe you were not listening to that part.

Mr. KAYE. I was listening.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Do you think he was entitled to the information

that he requested?

Mr. KAYE. Again, I don’t recall what information he requested

that he was not given.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Gorsline, I am talking about Mr. Carver.

Mr. GORSLINE. Mr. Carver’s case, I think it was a complete

breakdown of human factors in the whole process with the supervisor. And that being said, that was the logjam involvement, the

company being made aware of it and their response, again, I think

that was—I wouldn’t have settled for that personally myself.

Mr. SHAYS. I think you are very generous, Mr. Gorsline. I mean,

the gentleman said, ‘‘My daughter was on board your ship. Your

steward knew that she was missing. You knew that she never came

to claim her belongings. You proceed to get rid of her belongings,

and you never told any of the family.’’ Hello?

Mr. GORSLINE. I agree, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. And then once he came forward, wouldn’t you have

thought that they would have said to Mr. Carver, ‘‘What can we

do to make things right from this point on? How can we cooperate?

What are all the things that you need to know? And what can we

do to help?’’ Wouldn’t that have seemed like the logical way?

Mr. GORSLINE. My personal opinion, sir, I would have set up a

casualty assistance team, more commonly referred to as a GO

team, and once the information became available of that occurrence, there would have been security on top of Mr. Carver giving

him anything he wanted.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Mr. Rivkind.

Mr. RIVKIND. Yes, Congressman, I think the way they handled

that was outrageous. I think it is easy to blame a supervisor, but

it goes to the top. You know, it goes to the training. It goes to the

mentality of anytime anything happens on a cruise ship that the

crew members, including supervisors, are there to protect the company. And I have cited in my written testimony the position the

cruise line has taken in a lawsuit by Mr. Carver that I think is also

outrageous. They have responded to his claim that they inflicted

emotional distress upon him by not releasing all this information

about his daughter, basic information. Their response, Congressman, was not to sit down and say, ‘‘We will give you the information. We want to give you some closure. We want to help you.’’

Their response was, ‘‘We do not owe you any duty to investigate.’’

212

And I think that is very, very telling, and I have attached that

memo to my written testimony.

Mr. SHAYS. That is, frankly, one of the motivations for our having this hearing. If the cruise line industry was eager not to have

us proceed, they could have treated someone like Mr. Carver in a

much different way.

I will start with you on Mr. Pham.

Mr. RIVKIND. I think the same thing. I think that they are quick

to characterize an incident as a suicide. You have heard the testimony, Congressman, that it does not appear that there were factors to suggest that. And it again goes to the source of the problem.

This is an industry that likes to characterize anything that happens on board their ship, including the Master, whom we have

heard is responsible for enforcement of all the rules and regulations on the ship and the safety of the ship, that anything that

happens on a cruise ship, it has been my experience that the mentality of the Master of the ship is nothing wrong happens on his

ship. ‘‘It is a suicide.’’ ‘‘It is consensual sex.’’ And I know we are

not talking about it now, but at any time you would like me to, it

applies to the George Smith case, too.

Mr. SHAYS. We are talking about the witnesses that came and

testified.

Mr. RIVKIND. Right.

Mr. SHAYS. You are representing the Smith family, correct?

Mr. RIVKIND. Yes, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. So that is another day.

Mr. Gorsline.

Mr. GORSLINE. Again, sir, I would have done the same thing. I

would have set up a casualty assistance team and gave the Pham

family everything they needed. Why things didn’t happen that way,

I don’t know the case and I am not a lawyer, but as a security person, a security expert, and having dealt with many situations like

that, the first thing you usually do is you address the issues and

the needs of the family or the persons that are involved in the situation when it arises.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Kaye.

Mr. KAYE. Based on what I have heard, there appears to be a

very serious problem. But as in most cases, there are usually two

sides.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Kaye, what would you do if you saw someone fall

overboard or jump? You are on board the ship. Where would you

go?

Mr. KAYE. I would immediately go to any one of the thousands

of employees on the ship and tell them. I would throw——

Mr. SHAYS. No, don’t get carried away here. There are not thousands of employees. There are about 900 employees, right?

Mr. KAYE. Depending on the size of the ship, there may be close

to 2,000 employees.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Kaye, with all due respect, I feel like I am playing a game here with you. I have been told by the cruise industry

that most of the ships are 2,000 passengers with 900 employees.

Should I go back to these folks and have them tell me differently?

That is what I have been told. I know there is going to be a 5,000-

213

passenger ship, but I am told most are around 2,000. Are most of

them 3,000 or 4,000? So tell me, I mean, you are the expert.

Mr. KAYE. Most of the ships have over 2,500 passengers and over

1,000 crew members.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. KAYE. In my experience.

Mr. SHAYS. So thousands or—you are under oath and under testimony here. How many crew members are there in a 2,500-passenger ship?

Mr. KAYE. I believe over 1,000.

Mr. SHAYS. Over 1,000. How many?

Mr. KAYE. I believe, although I am not certain, 1,200 to 1,500.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So you would go to any one of the employees on

board the ship, and what would that employee do?

Mr. KAYE. Normally, I believe, if I first went to an employee,

they would immediately contact the bridge, and they would begin

a man-overboard procedure.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Gorsline, what would you do?

Mr. GORSLINE. I would flag down an employee, tell them to contact the bridge that they have a man overboard. And because of my

background, I would look for the nearest life ring with——

Mr. SHAYS. The nearest what?

Mr. GORSLINE. Nearest life ring with a blinker on it and throw

it over the side to try and mark the spot. But that is me personally

because I have that background.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you think most employees know instantly what to

do if someone is overboard?

Mr. GORSLINE. I know there is a man-overboard procedure on

board the ship. The abilities to effectively execute it is totally dependent upon their training and how often and how familiar they

are with that.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Rivkind.

Mr. RIVKIND. My knee-jerk reaction would be, of course, obviously to flag down the first person I could, hope they speak

English, and hope that the crew member is somebody who has

some training and knows what to do. I would have doubt whether

all the crew members would.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Let me just say that if Mr. Kaye had said the

last point, I would question him, so I want to question you. The implication is that most people don’t speak English. Do you think that

is fair?

Mr. RIVKIND. Not all—not the most.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you think that is accurate? Is the implication of

what you just said that most people don’t speak English?

Mr. RIVKIND. I think a majority of crew members may not based

on my experience. There are increasing requirements now occurring to place more English-speaking crew members on board the

ships, and they currently are doing that. My experience over the

years has been there has been a great number of the crew members, you know, even some of the officers, you know—and if they

speak English, it is not thorough, complete English.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Gorsline, how many security people are on board

a ship of, say, 1,000 employees or crew members? How many—and

by ‘‘security,’’ I mean people that would function like police officers.

214

Mr. GORSLINE. Sir, based upon 49 CFR 1520, I cannot go into

those numbers because they are classified security sensitive information.

Mr. SHAYS. You know, can I say something? I have just been

waiting for someone to do that. Why is it OK for me to know how

many police officers are in Darien, CT, and it is not all right for

me as a passenger to know how many police officers are on a ship?

Mr. GORSLINE. Sir, with the current security posture of the country and the industry and what we have to deal with on a regular

daily basis, it is not prudent to make that information available.

Mr. SHAYS. Is it not prudent because we do not have enough?

Mr. GORSLINE. Oh, no, sir. We have enough. I will tell you this,

sir. Let me give you this for——

Mr. SHAYS. Your testimony is that you have enough. That is

what——

Mr. GORSLINE. Yes, sir, we do. I will say from my personal experience on the ships that I have audited, there is plenty of security

people on board, and the programs in place in tiered level to go

ahead and back them up to the nth degree. A case in point, I will

give you a perfect mathematical example——

Mr. SHAYS. Do they carry weapons?

Mr. GORSLINE. I cannot give you that information, sir. They are

trained in crowd control and maintaining control of a ship.

Mr. SHAYS. Are they trained in institutions or are they trained

on board the ship?

Mr. GORSLINE. It depends on the company, sir. Most personnel

that are hired in those positions are of a security background,

whether it be former military or former law enforcement.

Mr. SHAYS. So your testimony before this subcommittee is that

most have military training?

Mr. GORSLINE. Yes, sir. The ships that I have done, yes, although

the foreign flag ships will have persons that are not U.S. military,

but they are former military background.

Mr. SHAYS. See, what I would think would be that you would

want me to know they are armed, that you would want me to know

they are extraordinarily capable, and the fact that this is not information that somehow people would share makes me think that we

are almost reluctant to have people know because it is not satisfactory. That is my implication from——

Mr. GORSLINE. Can I clarify, sir?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. GORSLINE. Here is the situation and the numbers. I am going

to go point by point here. If you were to take a city, as New York

City—and I use New York because that is where I am from. You

have 8 million inhabitants and you have 43,000 law enforcement

officers on the books. You divide that into three shift. That approximately comes out to 13,333 people per shift, if they all show up.

Normally it is between 7,000 to 10,000 people. That puts one police

officer per thousand people, roughly, in that city—OK—on a shift,

on an 8-hour shift. OK.

The cruise industry has security personnel that covers that many

times over. Now, as to the question of weaponry and protection, I

will say this: Cruises have their own personality. Every cruise is

addressed with a different security level based upon the requireVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00218 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
215

ment of what the cruise is going to be going underneath. They have

their basic levels. The regulations are set up for those basic level.

But if you have a spring break cruise, you may add some additional

things. You may put a law enforcement officer or two or four on

board to assist the security staff to deal with rowdy individuals in

like-type situations. If you have a charter party where you have

dignitaries or that kind of thing, they bring their own security on

board if it is that kind of situation, and that enhances the cruise

security on board the ship.

But the basic level of security is there. Additionally to the security force, the crew will have responsibilities based upon the increase of the mar-sec level based on the terrorist threat. And those

crew members that have been designated by the Emergency Response Plan will augment the security department. So the numbers

increase exponentially.

Mr. KAYE. Mr. Chairman, may I throw in a comment here?

Mr. SHAYS. Sure.

Mr. KAYE. I understand where you are coming from, and I think

it is a very legitimate question. The difference between a cruise

ship and a city is that a cruise ship is a self-contained environment. A city has, you know, limitless resources.

Mr. SHAYS. Right.

Mr. KAYE. And so, you know, when you start talking about what

the exact capabilities are, you are by definition telling people what

the limitations are. I may be going out on a limb here, but it may

be completely appropriate for this information to be divulged to you

in private.

Mr. SHAYS. No, but see, what my view is, if you had sufficient

security, it would almost be a disincentive to do something on

board a ship. And so you view it as a way to give someone an opportunity to know how they could overcome the ship or to commit

a crime. I view it the opposite. I view it as saying, my gosh, they

got so many folks, I wouldn’t want to fool around.

So it is interesting, our two different perspectives.

Mr. GORSLINE. Sir, can I just comment on that part also? In my

career, I worked a lot of surveillance detection for the State Department. We did a lot of work on identifying those individuals

that would cause harm to U.S. facilities, and that was part of the

deal, we would go on out and basically bird-dog certain places

where certain people would hang out and identify their posture,

their profiles and everything else, and we would put them in categories.

Now, put that in reverse mode. That is exactly what happens

when somebody comes on a cruise ship that wants to identify its

weaknesses. They call it a vulnerability assessment. If you identify

a vessel’s vulnerability and you determine how to defeat it, you put

everybody on board that vessel, crew and passengers, at risk. This

is part of that.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you this: Do you think it is a disincentive

to crime or an incentive to crime to know we have a marshal on

board a plane?

Mr. GORSLINE. On a plane? On an aircraft?

Mr. SHAYS. Yes.

216

Mr. GORSLINE. I think personally that any motivated individual

or entity that is going to carry out an act and has identified an entity to do it on is going to do it. If the marshal is there and he gets

the job, which is about 3 seconds to respond, because at the last

level, Level 7 of an attack when it occurs, is recognition of an attack. If that marshal can recognize——

Mr. SHAYS. You are talking a different language to me. I just

asked a simple question. Do you think it is an incentive or disincentive?

Mr. GORSLINE. It is a disincentive. If you can make a target

harder, they will move on. But if you put a marshal on there, you

are going to take something—you know, you have to account for

how many marshals are you going to put on. What jurisdiction are

they going to be?

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask the question again. Do you think it is an

incentive or a disincentive to let people know that we have a marshal on board an airplane? All you have to do is tell me you think

it is an incentive or not an incentive or you don’t know. What is

your answer?

Mr. GORSLINE. For the passengers?

Mr. SHAYS. For someone to commit a crime on board. Tell me

your answer.

Mr. GORSLINE. I think it is a disincentive. If you make a target

harder, they are going to move on to the next target.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. And the fact that they know it is a disincentive.

Mr. GORSLINE. But part of the marshal program, sir, if I just say,

is that you don’t know who the marshal is. You just know they are

out there.

Mr. SHAYS. Fine. So let me ask the next question: Do we have

marshals on board ships?

Mr. GORSLINE. To my knowledge, in the cruise industry, no, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. OK.

Mr. GORSLINE. Now, if the cruise line wants to go ahead and put

one in for a specific cruise, i.e., hire a local sheriff’s department or

a police officer to come on board——

Mr. SHAYS. See, but I like those, if the crimes are investigated

by the Federal Government, why not have a Federal official on

board the ship?

Mr. GORSLINE. Because a Federal officer would not be in his jurisdiction because the flag of the ship is not flagged United States.

Mr. SHAYS. So help me out, Mr. Kaye. You are trying to make

me feel comfortable that the Federal officials are going to quickly

get involved, and we have testimony from Mr. Gorsline that they

shouldn’t be on board the ship because Federal officials are out of

jurisdiction there.

Mr. KAYE. I don’t think legally that answer flies. I think that if

there is a crime on board involving an American, a Federal official

on board would have jurisdiction. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So——

Mr. KAYE. But he might not have jurisdiction over nationals of

a foreign country who are victims of crimes if the incident is on the

high seas.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. It is just that I am just thinking, you

know, a crime is committed and then how does the FBI agent get

217

on board to investigate when the ship is out to sea. I am just wondering, if these ships are so expensive and we have so many people

and so many employees, and we are willing to put a marshal on

board an airplane, is not one of the suggestions made by the group

before us that we do that, someone with Federal jurisdiction, is

there not some logic to it? Mr. Rivkind.

Mr. RIVKIND. Well, Congressman Shays, my experience—and I

think we have heard it also from the FBI, my direct discussions

with the FBI—is I think Mr. Gorsline is correct, when you fly a foreign flag, you are the country of that flag. And the FBI has stated—there may be criminal jurisdictional statutes where they can

enforce in court a crime that is committed on the ship, but as far

as getting on board that ship, there are a lot of complex issues

there. They have to get permission of the cruise line or the Master

because that is a foreign-flagged ship, and if the ship is in a foreign

country, there may be some relationship with that particular foreign country, too, that has to be worked out for them to get on

board the ship. And we have a case involving where the FBI wasn’t

allowed to board the ship for some period of time. It is up to the

Master. He controls that ship. It is the country of the flag.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me ask you, Mr. Kaye, not here but later—and

Mr. Gorsline, and you, Mr. Rivkind, to review the suggestions that

were made by the International Cruise Victims Association. I think

that in my time in Congress this is a very, I think, fine example

of people trying to make a contribution who have felt they have

been victims. It may be that some are just simply not going to do

what they want or are not feasible or are simply not affordable.

But I do think in here it would be helpful to know your reactions.

And let me tell you what—I don’t usually do this, but what I

think I have learned from this session. Mr. Kaye, your comment

that the records that crime statistics of a felony have to be reported

is going to stand with me. I at the last hearing believed it wasn’t.

We have spoken to the Coast Guard. They say no. You have cited

regulation. That is going to stand until I hear differently.

The fact that it is $10,000 or more for a felony says to me that

it is not really as helpful as it should be. I think crimes below

$10,000, if they are not going to be investigated, should at least be

reported.

I have mixed feelings about, Mr. Kaye, your response to some of

the folks that testified, because I felt like with every one of them,

admittedly some alleged, but all of them heartfelt, that at the very

least the cruise industry should have been, once they knew what

had happened, once they felt the agony of the family, should have

been moving in a different direction than they moved.

And I will say, because I know that Jennifer Hagel-Smith is

here, and I had read from her letter previous, the one-page document that I read, condensed from evidently six pages, I think overstated her circumstance in terms of not necessarily—her claim was

that no one was there for her. In the context of what she meant,

I do have empathy for what she meant. She had believed that there

would be security people and so on.

I was a little surprised, I will say, with the response of the cruise

industry. I felt—excuse me, the cruise line. I felt that their reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00221 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
218

sponse to her comments was maybe accurate to a point, but a little

insensitive given what she has gone through.

And so we are going to have the next panel. I think what we will

try to do is convene at least their statements. And is there anything you would like to put on the record before we get to the next

panel, any closing comments?

Mr. RIVKIND. I would just state, Congressman, that the president

of Royal Caribbean Cruise Line has gone on national television saying, ‘‘We are the only industry that is not required to report a

crime.’’ So I think that maybe in the next panel——

Mr. SHAYS. We will sort it out.

Mr. RIVKIND [continuing]. That should be addressed, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, this is not the last hearing.

Mr. RIVKIND. OK.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Gorsline, any comments you would like to make?

Mr. GORSLINE. No, sir. I think I have said all I need to say.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Kaye.

Mr. KAYE. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, and I want to say to all three of you your

testimony has been very helpful, and, Mr. Kaye, you are the first

person who has ever claimed it is simple, and it may, in fact, be

more simple than we think, but it may not be right. So, with that,

let me thank you all very much.

Mr. KAYE. Thank you, Congressman.

Mr. SHAYS. I do not usually convene a panel at 5:30. Are they

still here? Excuse me, 6:30. Mr. Charley Mandigo, Director of Fleet

Security, Holland America Lines; Captain William S. Wright, senior vice president, Marine Operations, Royal Caribbean, accompanied by Dr. James Fox.

We have two people giving testimony. Mr. Mandigo, Captain

Wright, and Dr. Fox, if you would raise your right hands?

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. SHAYS. Gentlemen, I am sorry that you have had to wait so

long. We started at 2. Probably this one we should have had only

two panels. But I would like you both to be able to make a statement before we break, and if you would be so kind as to allow us

to vote and then finish with our questions, that would be appreciated.

Mr. MANDIGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. It is Mr. Mandigo?

Mr. MANDIGO. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mandigo, you have the floor.

STATEMENTS OF CHARLEY MANDIGO, DIRECTOR, FLEET SECURITY, HOLLAND AMERICA LINE; AND CAPTAIN WILLIAM S.

WRIGHT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MARINE OPERATIONS,

ROYAL CARIBBEAN INTERNATIONAL, ACCOMPANIED BY

JAMES FOX, NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY, THE LIPMAN

FAMILY PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

STATEMENT OF CHARLEY MANDIGO

Mr. MANDIGO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here before your subcommittee a second time. I believe that I was here in December.

219

My name is Charlie Mandigo. I am the director of Fleet Security

for Holland America Line. Holland America Line is a subsidiary

company of Carnival Corp., which encompasses Carnival Cruise

Lines, Princess, Costa, Holland America Line, Windstar, and a couple other companies. My position also is a company security officer

for Holland America Line.

I have been employed by Holland America for 3 years in the position, and prior to that, I was employed by the FBI for 27 years and

had retired as a special agent in charge of the Seattle office of the

FBI. In that position, I was responsible for all crimes underneath

the FBI’s jurisdiction to include terrorism, crimes on the high seas,

and other matters.

In that 27-year career, as all of us see in the media, it rapidly

became clear to me that crime can occur in every segment of society, regardless of where we were. In that capacity, and switching

careers from one to another, and prior to my employment with Holland America Line I had never been on a cruise ship, but looking

at the numbers that my expectation would be that I would look at

the possibility of spending a significant amount of my time handling crime on cruise ships.

Much to my satisfaction in this when I came to the cruise line

and supervising these matters throughout Holland America that

has 12 cruise ships, I found a very low incidence of crime compared

to what my expectation was. And what I did find was a significant

amount of our time was spent looking at proactive measures on

board cruise ships to try to avoid crime. And we have many measures in place on cruise ships to deter crime, to minimize crime, and

we do an extraordinarily good job on that.

Unfortunately, when we are dealing with a large number of people, as any large number of people in any segment of our population, there are always going to be incidents that occur that are

tragic and are unfortunate. And I know in my experience of law enforcement where I handled child abductions, kidnappings, and

other matters, some of them did not turn out well. Always the most

difficult part of the job was dealing with victims, in that they are

very tearing, they are very tragic, and very difficult to deal with.

And all victims on this, we would extend our condolences to. But

it is our objective to provide a safe and secure place for all of our

guests on board our cruise ships.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Mandigo.

Captain Wright. You need to hit the button there. There you go.

Captain WRIGHT. Technology.

Mr. SHAYS. Great. Thank you, sir.

[The information referred to follows:]

220

221

222

223

224

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WRIGHT

Captain WRIGHT. Chairman Shays and members of the subcommittee, my name is Bill Wright. I am the senior vice president

of Marine Operations for Royal Caribbean International, a global

cruise vacation company operating 19 ships. Our sister brand is

Celebrity Cruises, which operates nine ships worldwide. I am

pleased to be here today to provide testimony on behalf of our two

cruise lines and our parent corporation, Royal Caribbean Cruises,

Limited.

I have more than 30 years of seafaring experience. I have worked

for Royal Caribbean International for nearly 14 years, including

serving as Master on a number of the ships in our fleet. In my current role, I am responsible for the maritime operations of the Royal

Caribbean International fleet. I was born and raised in south Florida.

All of us at Royal Caribbean appreciate the time and serious consideration that you are applying to these hearings.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

Captain WRIGHT. We hope that they will improve the public’s understanding of our industry, and we particularly appreciate you

giving us this opportunity to appear before you to answer the subcommittees questions.

There are clearly a lot of emotions surrounding the issues being

raised here today, and our hearts go out to everyone here who has

suffered a loss. But it is important that the facts and only the facts

drive decisionmaking by interested parties and that the media not

be used to distort the facts or to get in the way of law enforcement

investigations in their search for the truth. It is important to the

public, the cruise industry, and to Royal Caribbean that we discuss

the facts completely, accurately, and in context.

My written testimony addresses in detail issues related to the

hiring and training of our staff, guest behavior policies, and crime

reporting policies. Due to my limited time today, I will touch briefly

on those issues and respond to those raised by others who have

been asked to testify today.

Providing a safe environment begins with hiring and training of

our crew members, including crime reporting procedures, our safety

policies regarding guests, and crew member behavior. Our U.S. and

foreign national crew member applicants are screened carefully,

and it is our policy not to hire anyone with a criminal past. Each

ship has officers with specific security responsibilities on board. All

crew members, regardless of their responsibilities, are trained to

report any suspicious condition or activities on board to their superiors, who are then required to report them up the chain of command.

Our policies and training require diligent reporting of alleged

crimes to the FBI and other law enforcement authorities. The FBI

has identified for the cruise line industry those allegations of potential crimes it wants reported. We not only report what the FBI

requests, but we often report additional allegations that fall below

FBI thresholds or what otherwise would not be reported in a landbased environment.

Perhaps this is why FBI Agent John DiPaolo, who oversees

criminal investigations for south Florida seaports, said the followVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00228 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
225

ing about the cruise industry’s crime reporting track record in the

Miami Herald story on February 12, 2006, and I believe the quote

is to our right and to your left: ‘‘‘We have very open lines of communication,’ DiPaolo said. ‘We’ve never had an instance where I

went to them and said, Hey, you should have reported that to us.’ ’’

In many cases, we give the FBI more than it requests. As a result, the FBI often declines to investigate allegations of crimes

below certain thresholds. In other words, we report incidents to the

FBI even though they fall below the thresholds the FBI has established for industry reporting. We have also in place strong and effective policies that establish appropriate behavior for crew members and guests, including crew member interaction with guests.

We enforce these policies up to and including expulsion from the

ship or termination of employment.

Today, you have heard testimony from others regarding individual experiences on our cruise ships. We at Royal Caribbean and

Celebrity Cruises extend our deepest sympathies to the Carver

family for their loss, and we regret that one of our guests, the

Leonards, reported that something was stolen while sailing with

us.

While we deeply regret that our guests had experiences they

shared with the subcommittee, we should not lose sight of the facts

surrounding these incidents, which represent less than one-tenth of

1 percent of our guests’ experiences.

The case of Ms. Carver is particularly tragic. We regret that the

Carver family has experienced this inconsolable loss. We know now

that one of our supervisors was notified by a room steward that

Ms. Carver was missing from her cabin. Unfortunately, and tragically, that supervisor did not recognize the significance of her absence and never reported it to his superior, as he should have done.

This was wrong and inexcusable. He exercised poor judgment and

we fired him as a result.

I also regret that, due to the supervisor’s failure to notify his superiors, we didn’t realize that Ms. Carver was missing and, therefore, no one from our company had the chance to personally inform

the Carver family about her disappearance.

Could we have done anything different to save Ms. Carver from

apparently committing suicide? We have searched our minds and

hearts to second-guess ourselves on that. Sadly, the facts appear

that Ms. Carver went on this cruise with the intent to commit suicide. Ms. Carver purchased her passage only 2 days before the

ship’s departure from Seattle and boarded with only the clothes she

was wearing, two purses, and an envelope containing a computer

disk. These are not items that would prepare her or anyone else

for a 7-night Alaska cruise.

Mr. Leonard alleged that some of his wife’s belonging were stolen

from his cabin. We are genuinely sorry for their loss. It is noteworthy, however, that the Leonards declined to use a safe deposit

box available on board because, as Mrs. Leonard has stated, she

did not want to be inconvenienced. The Leonards have also declined travel insurance. And just if this jewelry had been lost at a

hotel while on land, Mrs. Leonard could have filed suit against the

company for her loss. But they have never exercised that right.

226

Had the Leonards taken advantage of our security precautions,

Mrs. Leonard’s jewelry would have been secure.

And, finally, I would like to add that our hearts continue to go

out to Jennifer Hagel-Smith and the Smith family over the disappearance of George Smith. I was personally very happy that I for

the first time have had the opportunity to meet Mr. and Mrs.

Smith and Bree Smith and extend my condolences for their tremendous loss.

I think it is important for the purpose of this subcommittee just

to state that in this instance, as in other instances, our reporting

of the disappearance of George Smith was expeditious and complete, and an investigation has been conducted, a thorough one,

and we continue to cooperate entirely with the FBI.

I thank you for this opportunity, and I am happy to take any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Captain Wright follows:]

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you very much. I am going to let my colleague

jump in, but I just want to ask you, Captain Wright, are you comfortable with—I believe sincerely that with the case of Mr. Carver

and his daughter Merrian, that you all deeply regret what happened. But I don’t hear any regret for the problems he still encountered in trying to get information. That is where I am having my

big disconnect with your company. It would seem to me that the

way you would best express your sorrow is to do—almost have a

situation team, it has been suggested, to say how can we help you

in any way, get the information you need to get—etc.

So, maybe you could respond to that.

Captain WRIGHT. Certainly. It is my understanding that we did

our best once we were aware of the disappearance of Mrs. Carver,

and it was tragic that the chain of command broke down. It was

a clear error chain. Things went wrong, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. No, but in terms of talking to employees and stuff

like that, they weren’t given the access to do that. I am just curious

why.

Captain WRIGHT. Oh. Well, my understanding, Mr. Chairman, is

that they were. We actually designated a vice president of the corporation, Mrs. Lynn White, who is responsible for overseeing these

types of issues, to personally take that case. We provided the

Carvers with information that was voluntary. We also replied to

subpoenas that Mr. Carver mentioned in his testimony. So I am

not sitting here with the opinion that we have been as

incooperative as Mr. Carver indicated.

Mr. SHAYS. So let me put it in a positive and then give it to Mr.

Kucinich. Are you saying that you provided all the information that

the Carver family has asked for, or some of the information?

Captain WRIGHT. Yes, I believe we have attempted to be cooperative and I believe that we—my understanding is that we have provided information voluntarily above what was requested in——

Mr. SHAYS. Are you aware of any information that you have not

provided that they have requested?

Captain WRIGHT. No, I am not.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to ask both Mr. Mandigo and Captain Wright, since

it has already been established that you don’t keep records for the

purpose of police reporting, you just turn things over to the FBI,

at least with respect to any crimes that are committed within the

United States, I have a question generally. Do you keep records for

insurance purposes? Mr. Mandigo.

Mr. MANDIGO. I don’t know what in reference you are making

that to, Mr. Kucinich.

Mr. KUCINICH. Well, you know, if you have incidents on your

ships, do you keep records for insurance purposes of those incidents?

Mr. MANDIGO. As a matter of routine, we would keep those

records. Now, if at a future date it becomes relevant to insurance,

then that record may be there. And we do not—we don’t keep

records specifically in anticipation of insurance. We keep records as

a matter of routine and operational procedures.

242

Mr. KUCINICH. See, I just wonder, you know, if throughout this

hearing this is one area that would be fruitful to explore, Mr.

Chairman. Because people have testified earlier there has been a

concern about certain things not being reported. And the implication is that there is a lack of incident recordkeeping and reporting

by the cruise line industries. We have heard from the FBI and the

Coast Guard they don’t keep track of the number of incidents on

cruise ships. I would think that just for insurance purposes companies would need to keep records of criminal acts.

And so I want to ask you again. Do you have records of the criminal acts that have taken place on your ships?

Mr. MANDIGO. We have records—anything that is reported to us,

you know, through our front desk on our cruise ships is reported

as a matter of record.

Mr. KUCINICH. And this is a matter between you and the insurance companies first?

Mr. MANDIGO. No, it is not for insurance companies, it is for our

own operational procedures.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you keep records and you file reports with

your insurers as to the incidents that take place on your ships?

Mr. MANDIGO. You are asking about a matter that I do not have

expertise in as far as, you know, what is filed for insurance claim

or not an insurance claim.

Mr. KUCINICH. Can you see that this subcommittee receives all

reports of incidents, criminal incidents, that have occurred on your

ships that have been filed with insurance companies?

Captain WRIGHT. I am sure that those records are there. They

are—it is not my area of work. That inquiry would have to be directed elsewhere.

Mr. KUCINICH. Captain Wright.

Captain WRIGHT. Congressman, I would agree with the statement that was just made, that we keep a wide variety of records.

I think your scrutiny of the——

Mr. KUCINICH. Are your ships insured?

Captain WRIGHT. Of course our ships are insured.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you have liability insurance for acts that take

place?

Captain WRIGHT. Yes, we do.

Mr. KUCINICH. Do you have out-of-court settlements that are directed, for instance——

Captain WRIGHT. I have no knowledge of that. I would assume

we do, yes. That is an area that is handled by our risk management people. I would not be aware of the details. But certainly our

ships are insured.

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is just another

way at which you can get information, that the subcommittee can

gain information about what is going on on these ships. And that

is to go after the records and the communications between the company and their insurers.

If you are telling the insurance companies what is going on,

there has to be records. Now, if things are going on and you are

not telling the insurance companies, I am sure the insurance companies are going to be very interested in that, because that would

affect what you are paying for your insurance. And it also could,

243

you know, raise some interesting other questions that are legal in

nature.

So I think—and the work of the committee, which I know is ongoing, Mr. Chairman, I thought I would point out to you that it

would be helpful for the committee’s work to get the records of

communications between the cruise lines and the insurance companies.

Finally, Mr. Chairman—I know we are getting close to a vote

here—I have from the Web site of the Royal Caribbean Lines a

page here that talks about their environmental safety and security

committee charter. I would like to submit it for the record. It says,

under ‘‘Safety and Security,’’ this committee that they have set up

shall review safety and security programs and policies on board the

corporation’s cruise ships; the committee shall review with management significant safety and security incidents on board the corporation’s cruise ships and obtain reports from members of management as the committee deems necessary or desirable in connection

with the corporation’s safety and security matters.

I would like to submit this for the record, and I would suggest

to the subcommittee that we also gain copies of those reports. They

might be really instructive as to what is actually going on on that

line and any similar reports that might be available on any other

line.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

[The information referred to follows:]

244

245

246

Mr. SHAYS. Gentlemen, I am going to make a request that, if you

don’t mind staying until after the vote, if you would look over—and

my staff will give it to you—the recommendations that were presented to this subcommittee by the International Cruise Victims

Association. What I would like is for you to tell me what you think

is being done right now, what you think would be totally impractical or impractical, what you think would be very expensive—and

let us judge that—and what you think might have merit, whether

we require it or whether you all did it.

This is the first hearing I have ever conducted where I have

asked people to stay after a night vote hearing, and I apologize. I

hope it will be the last.

Dr. FOX. Will you want me to testify afterwards?

Mr. SHAYS. Right. You know, Dr. Fox, I am sorry, I thought you

were accompanying, and ‘‘accompanying’’ means you don’t testify.

So I apologize. That is the understanding. But I am happy to have

you answer and respond to any questions that we have, OK?

So we will have a temporary adjournment.

[Recess.]

Mr. SHAYS. The subcommittee will come to order.

Let me just revise what I said before I just ran out. Dr. Fox, we

had you down as accompanying Captain Wright, but we are happy

to take testimony, particularly given that it is a little after 7 at

night and you have been here all day. So your testimony is welcomed, valued, and we will look forward to hearing from you.

Dr. FOX. Thank you. And I believe there was also some written

testimony which has already been submitted. Very short, so perhaps lost in the shuffle of the large documents.

Mr. SHAYS. It doesn’t have to be short. You give your testimony

as you want.

Dr. FOX. Oh, my verbal testimony will be short as well—not just

given the hour, but it is short. And I thank you for listening to me

and apologize for the confusion about the agenda.

Mr. Chairman, my name is James Allen Fox. I don’t mind the

fact that there was this oversight, not at all. The only thing I minded tonight was when someone made reference to the fox guarding

the henhouse. I took a personal affront to that.

I am the Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University in Boston. I think I heard that you were from

Boston originally, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. I wasn’t from Boston and I wasn’t from Hartford; I

was closer to New York City, which makes me a suspect Yankee.

Dr. FOX. OK. I thought I heard Boston earlier, so I thought we

would speak the same language here.

Mr. SHAYS. No, what I was explaining is Mr. Lynch had no trouble hearing our witness from Ireland; I needed a little translation.

Dr. FOX. OK.

My specialty is crime statistics and crime measurement. I have

several graduate degrees—doctorate, a couple of masters. One of

the masters degrees is in mathematical statistics, besides the masters and doctorate in criminology. Among my books, I also have

written seven statistics texts. I was the founding editor of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, which is the most prestigious

quantitative journal in our discipline. I am also a fellow at the DeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00250 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
247

partment of Justice Bureau of Statistics, maintaining much of the

data on homicide. I point that out in terms of my role here, which

is essentially to discuss and comment, and perhaps validate, on

some of the measurements that have been made about the risk.

I have also testified on 12 other occasions here in the Congress,

so it is nice to be back. This time I am back at the request of the

International Council on Cruise Lines and specifically to examine

and comment on some of the numbers that have floated around—

no pun intended—about crimes on board ships.

Before I make my comments, I did listen and I was somewhat

interested in the exchange earlier about Mr. Rivkind’s testimony

and whether Mr. Mica had heard it correctly or not heard it correctly. Actually, I heard it a little bit differently. I thought he had

said that it is not about the statistics. Which to me meant that he

wasn’t saying statistics aren’t important but that it is really an

issue of human suffering and tragedy. And I do understand that

and I feel quite strongly, as others do here, that we shouldn’t lose

sight of the tragedy and loss and suffering amidst all the numbers.

Yet it is also interesting, in Mr. Rivkind’s oral and written testimony he does say, ‘‘There has been increasing numbers of criminal

activity aboard ships.’’ And being a numbers person and a

quantoid, I sort of looked for some tables that—there are none. And

I do wonder how he does make the statement about there being an

increasing number of crimes. I suppose he just feels that since

there is more ridership, more passengership, there would be more

crimes, but that is an open question.

I did look at some of the data. And while of course there is virtually no place——

Mr. SHAYS. Could I just ask? I have asked all the other witnesses

who testified in the last panel if they represented any interest. Are

you being in any way paid by the cruise line industry? Are you representing them because—I think the feeling was that not that what

you say isn’t valid, but I just want to know. You are not an indifferent source here. You are paid by the industry or not?

Dr. FOX. I am being paid as a consultant by the industry, yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. But I respect that you are here with your expertise and your knowledge and the requirements that go with it,

and I thank you.

Dr. FOX. Yes. And indeed, the request from the industry was for

me to look at some statistics and do some analyses of those numbers and see what they find.

Now, if the findings—like I don’t know if I would be here, but

I am here and I shall see. I stand behind these calculations whether I am paid or not paid.

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. Thank you.

Dr. FOX. Now of course there is virtually no place on land or on

sea that is totally risk-free. Still, Americans traveling aboard the

major cruise lines that service this country can be assured of their

personal safety.

Now, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it is a very difficult task to

try to derive a statistical matchmate or a standard for assessing

the relative risk of crime on board a cruise ship versus some other

location like a local community. A cruise ship is an atypical location. It is an atypical composition of people. It is not representative

248

of any city in terms of age, race, and gender and level of affluence.

And indeed, the climate on board a ship is sometimes quite spirited

and not at all like the day-to-day work environment that people

have in their homes and their home neighborhoods.

Regardless of the methodological complexities that make it difficult to strike these comparisons, what I did find is that the number of reported serious crimes aboard cruise ships is extremely low

no matter what benchmark or standard you use. Now, compared

against a home community, passengers have an appreciably lower

risk of sexual assault and robbery while enjoying a vacation cruise.

Now, I recognize, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that it is

very difficult to take some of these raw numbers about how many

millions of passengers there are and translate that into a comparison with a community. But I think you have done it correctly when

you say about 200,000 would be the appropriate number. And indeed, in the table that is attached to my written testimony, I do

essentially that. I take the 31-plus million passengers over a 3-year

period of time and turn that into a—number of about 10 million

and convert that by essentially multiplying by 6.9——

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t have your testimony.

Dr. FOX. OK. You don’t?

Mr. SHAYS. No.

Dr. FOX. It is over there.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, the press has it but the subcommittee doesn’t.

So we are going to see if someone will get that for us.

Dr. FOX. So essentially I take that number, 10 million, multiply

by the average length of a cruise, which is 6.9 days, divide that by

52, to essentially convert the ridership, the passengership on board

to an annualized number comparable to the fact that you live in

your home community virtually year-round. And there are indeed

not quite 200,000, but 195,000–196,000 passengers, once you make

that adjustment to give you a full-time annual equivalent.

Adding in the size of the crew, because they can of course be victims of crime as well as perpetrators, you come up with a total population figure.

That, then, I take the number of sexual assaults—and I remove

the cases of what is called sexual contact, which is not truly a

rape—I try to get at the numbers of rapes as well as the number

of robberies for the cruise lines and that population that I have calculated—which turns out to be 281,000 on an annual basis including crew and passengers, converted to full-time equivalent—and

convert that into a crime rate and compare it to what the crime

rate is in the United States for forcible rape and robbery.

And for forcible rape, what you essentially see is that the rate

of rape on board ships on cruises is about half that of the national

average.

Now, in terms of robbery—and I want to point out there is a little bit of distinction and clarity about this that is needed. In the

last panel, there was discussion about thefts of 10,000 or more and

thefts that are lower than 10,000. And once in a while the word

‘‘robbery’’ was used by a witness. And these are robberies. In fact,

I believe the request had to do with robberies, which is a confrontation between a victim and the robber. There is a personal confrontation, there is intimidation, threat——

249

Mr. SHAYS. As opposed to theft?

Dr. FOX. As opposed to theft, when the victim is somewhere else

and their property is taken. This is robbery, not theft. Theft involves your property being taken unlawfully by someone when

there is no intimidation, no personal confrontation between you

and the perpetrator. Robbery is when someone confronts you, demands money——

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, we get it. We get it.

Dr. FOX. OK. And comparing the incidence of sexual assault—

rape—and robbery on board cruise ships per 100,000 population,

comparing that to the United States where you do find that, as I

said, for sexual assault the rate is half that of the United States.

And for robbery, it is a tiny, tiny fraction. Robberies essentially

don’t happen very often on board cruise ships. And that makes

sense because of the very confined area, where it is very difficult

for an offender to get away, and the relatively secure environment

that you find on board ship compared to your local community.

So to conclude here, I think that the comparison with lightning

that was struck—again, pardon the pun—before, I think, is quite

telling. There are four sexual assaults per million passengers. So

when someone buys a ticket on a cruise line, there’s four——

Mr. SHAYS. Wait a second. Why do you then go to a million passengers? Why wouldn’t you say so many sexual assaults—this is

over a 3-year period or—I mean, wouldn’t it be over 200,000, not

a million?

Dr. FOX. This is when—what is the chance that when you buy

and ticket and you are going to spend a week on a cruise——

Mr. SHAYS. Oh, I see. OK.

Dr. FOX. When you buy a ticket and spend a week on the cruise,

what is the chance that you will be sexually assaulted in that

week? An individual.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, fair enough. So we are not comparing to towns

right now, we are—that is not—OK.

Dr. FOX. Right. I am just comparing to the weather. When you

buy a ticket for a cruise, you have a 4 in 1 million chance of being

sexually assaulted. That is identical to the chance of being struck

by lightning.

Now, of course, we don’t go out in a rainstorm when we take

that——

Mr. SHAYS. Wait a second. Wait a second. Isn’t lightning over a

stretch of a year?

Dr. FOX. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. This is not a stretch over a year. This is 1 week.

Dr. FOX. It is the time period for which you are on that cruise.

Now, if you spend every day on the cruise and you take a year-long

cruise, obviously your chances increase, but most Americans don’t

spend a year on a boat, on a ship, they spend a week.

Mr. SHAYS. I know, but I just wondered if you are being fair with

your comparison right now. Maybe I am just not getting it, but it

seems to me you have to multiply times 52.

Dr. FOX. Except it also doesn’t rain every day either. So there are

a lot of days in the year when you have no chance of being struck.

The reason I bring this up is just people have a sense that, yes,

there is a certain risk of lightning striking you. But it is a risk that

250

we sort of deal with, we take reasonable precautions in a rainstorm

and a thunder-and-lightning storm. And all I am saying here is

that, yes, there is a risk of sexual assault—4 in a million; there is

a risk of robbery, which is a very tiny risk, much, much smaller

than that. We can’t—there is probably no place where there is zero

risk, but these are rather low numbers.

Mr. SHAYS. See—yes, OK. Keep going.

Dr. FOX. Well, that is really what I have to say, is that when you

adjust for exposure time, the chance of being assaulted on a cruise

ship is extremely slim.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. I am not comfortable with the statistics. So your

going through the statistics with me is partially valid, but there is

another part that hasn’t bought into the fact that they are legit.

But we will satisfy ourselves. I don’t know how long it will take,

but we will satisfy ourselves either they are legitimate or they are

not.

I used to be in the Peace Corps in the Fiji Islands. There were

cruise ships that would come and go. And it was a duty-free goods

port. I was made aware that people would buy cameras at the very

end and think they were getting an F-stop that was lower than

what they were getting, and they would get on board the ship and

the ship is about to go. It is just a different—you know, and they

couldn’t run back and quickly exchange and they overpaid and all

that stuff.

I just have the feeling that a lot of people don’t report it because,

the next day they are off or that afternoon they leave. Then they

may report it later, but it doesn’t get reported by the cruise industry. I just think there are a lot of other factors that come into play.

It is a suspicion.

But I would concede that if the statistics are accurate, the numbers are pretty low. I think that a witness like Ms. Kelly would not

show up on the radar screen. And I think that when we talk about

George Smith, if he was killed he would be called ‘‘missing’’ and not

‘‘killed.’’ So I just have problems.

Dr. FOX. Well, also, in Greenwich, CT, which I think—is that

your area? If rapes occur, they are not always reported either.

There are many reasons why victims of crime don’t report it. That

could happen on land and on sea.

[The information referred to follows:]

251

252

Mr. SHAYS. I just wonder, though, if the nature of just being on

board a week means that sometimes things just don’t get reported

that would if they were on board for a month, would have gotten

reported. It is like, what’s the point, I am leaving tomorrow, who

the heck do I speak with, and, and, and.

So at any rate, I am just telling you what I think and I am just

a little suspicious of the statistics. Now we have Mr. Kaye who

said, you know, they are required by law to report it. Yet we have

the Government telling us they are not required by law to report

it. That raises questions.

So at any rate, thank you for your points about the statistics. At

this time I am going to have Dr. Palarino just ask you a few questions for the record and then I am going to go through this document that I asked you to look at.

Dr. PALARINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have quick questions for Mr. Mandigo and Captain Wright.

I have heard talk about a risk management office. Could you

both explain what a risk management office is and what it does?

Mr. MANDIGO. Well, I have very little to do with the risk management office, but it is basically the people that would handle, as

I understand it, the people that are making claims against the

company. Not litigation, but people that, you know, feel that they

have some grievance with the company. There may be damage to

equipment that, where we have insurance, where it would be repaired. That is my understanding of what those people do.

Dr. PALARINO. Captain Wright.

Captain WRIGHT. Very much the same thing. We have a risk

management department. It is a very large department that has a

multitude of responsibilities. They are responsible for our insurance. They are responsible for the operation, the running of our

medical facilities. They maintain a 24–7 watch system in terms of

the ship’s need to contact shoreside either for notification purposes,

for—quite often and most regularly—for the coordination of a medical evacuation, which occurs with some degree of regularity. That

is the number that we can call from the ship and be guaranteed

that somebody is there who knows the procedures, has the telephone numbers, has the contacts, and can respond.

Dr. PALARINO. So the victims and the victims’ families that testified on panel one, each one of those would have had some type of

risk management associated with their incident. Is that a correct

statement?

Captain WRIGHT. It depends on how it comes through the system, that it may have come in. If they filed a civil suit, lawsuit,

then it is not going to go to risk management, it is going to go

through a legal counsel, outside counsel, however it is handled. But

they come in and make a claim against the company, yes, it would

go to the risk management people.

Dr. PALARINO. So it wouldn’t have gone to the risk management

people initially. Is that a correct statement?

Captain WRIGHT. Well, quite possibly it could have.

Dr. PALARINO. It could have gone——

Captain WRIGHT. Yes, we would have—depending on the incident

that we are referring to, we would provide the information, the conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 08:55 Aug 03, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00256 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\28532.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
253

tact information to the guest saying that when you get ashore, here

is the contact number to followup this incident further.

Dr. PALARINO. Thank you.

Mr. Gorsline mentioned a casualty assistance team. Are you familiar with that team or concept?

Mr. MANDIGO. I am familiar with what that concept is.

Dr. PALARINO. What would a casualty assistance team be?

Mr. MANDIGO. Basically a casualty assistance team would be a

component of a crisis management plan, and that is when you have

something happen, that you have designated people that would respond to that particular situation.

Dr. PALARINO. Is that same for Royal Caribbean?

Captain WRIGHT. That is correct. But I think we need to characterize it in the framework of being something of a larger event,

where we need a lot of people at a scene to be able to deal with

it. A ship was delayed, for example, coming in, if there were something other, not an individual incident occurring on board.

Dr. PALARINO. Would Mr. Mulvaney have been assigned a casualty assistance team?

Mr. MANDIGO. I mean, that is a——

Dr. PALARINO. He told me he was.

Mr. MANDIGO. Yes, and I say it is a mixed question. I mean, it

just depends on a variety of circumstances.

Dr. PALARINO. Were the other victims or victims’ families assigned a casualty assistance team?

Mr. MANDIGO. Not all victims would be assigned a, as you call

it, a victim casualty team or whatever. They may be assigned a

person in the company as an individual that would look after them,

but not necessarily a formal-type process.

Dr. PALARINO. OK. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you.

This document that you all have looked at, the International

Cruise Victims Association suggestions, they have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,

7, 8, 9, 10 categories from background checks, the international police, security, crime scenes, structural enhancement, video surveillance, access security bracelets, missing or overboard passengers,

rape kits, rape reporting, excursions sold and promoted, cruise

lines’ accountability, and U.S. Congress intervention.

Tell me the area that you already do or come closest to doing.

Which category would you say is already being covered in some degree?

Mr. MANDIGO. We already do parts of backgrounds. Security

crime scenes, we essentially do all of the security crime scenes——

Mr. SHAYS. I could say you do almost all of these to some degree

already.

Mr. MANDIGO. That is correct. On security crime scenes, we effectively do all of these. For instance, we were talking there may be,

you know, this particular check-off list, we may or may not be

doing, but we are essentially doing everything on that list.

Mr. SHAYS. Do you take pictures of the crime scene?

Mr. MANDIGO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. You have an official photographer who does that?

Mr. MANDIGO. We have photographers aboard the ship, and that

is part of the procedure, is to photograph the crime scene.

254

Mr. SHAYS. Any other areas that you would say you are already

doing?

Mr. MANDIGO. The video cameras, I mean, we do in part, not all.

The rape kits, we do all of what the rape kits currently does have

reported there.

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s go through that, then, if you say you do all. And

it is not a long list. It says doctors who have a license to practice

medicine must be available 24 hours, 7. That is true.

No request should be refused or taken lightly. That would be a

matter of judgment.

Written documentation to be provided, signed and issued to the

point. That probably you do?

Mr. MANDIGO. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. Any other area that you think you cover pretty well

on this list?

Mr. MANDIGO. Other areas that we may have small parts of, but

not necessarily in a majority or in total.

Mr. SHAYS. What is the area that would be the most difficult to

do in terms of being practical. Forget dollars right now. And I am

Captain Wright as well to join in.

Captain WRIGHT. Sure. All right, well, I will start off. I would say

the access security bracelets. The microchips, positive identification.

Mr. SHAYS. I am sorry, where are we at now?

Captain WRIGHT. Page 2, Access Security Bracelets.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, OK.

Captain WRIGHT. I think it is pretty clear that while one could

conceive that would perhaps provide some benefit, there are a lot

of civil liberties issues and would be certainly something that is almost unprecedented in any other application.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just ask. Some folks, what goes in Las Vegas,

stays in Las Vegas. The sense is you want to give people a sense

of privacy. If someone goes from one cabin to another or something,

you don’t need someone tracking, hey, this guy went to that cabin

and this person went to this cabin, or two couples swapped or

whatever.

Captain WRIGHT. Sure. I think that is a reasonable position, yes,

Mr. SHAYS. I am giving that as an example, but there could be

a lot of examples.

Captain WRIGHT. Right. The technology is there. Clearly today it

is doable. It is used in all kinds of industrial applications.

Mr. SHAYS. It is mostly a privacy issue?

Captain WRIGHT. Yes, I would say so.

Mr. SHAYS. OK. What would be another area?

Captain WRIGHT. I think there probably are some—and I am not

the expert, but I think from a jurisdictional perspective, we discussed this with marshals. I mean, certainly if you had marshals

on board, they would perhaps have some jurisdiction on a certain

segment of the ship’s population, but due to our international

makeup on a typical cruise, both of our guests and of our crew

members, they would most likely not have authority for enforcement of anything with a certain percentage of the crew members

or passengers.

255

Mr. SHAYS. Are most of the folks who are on a cruise ship Americans? I mean, are they the predominant number?

Mr. MANDIGO. Yes. I mean, we have a subsidiary line out of Europe where, when they sail in Europe, a majority of the passengers

would not be American. But for the most part, they are U.S. citizens.

Mr. SHAYS. What do you think is—I realize you can’t speak for

your company in—well, maybe you can somewhat. But what are

the areas that you found the most intriguing? I mean, would you

agree that this is a fairly good list?

Captain WRIGHT. Yes, it is an excellent document, as you earlier

said. I think it is——

Mr. SHAYS. Just give me a taste of something that you might feel

was a logical—whether it is required by the Government or whether you decide to do it, if you were to take this list to your folks and

say, you know, there is some merit here, I would kind of like—you

know, am intrigued by this idea, what would be those areas that

you might see that?

Mr. MANDIGO. One intriguing area, and of course this is, again,

that authority that cruise lines don’t have is this proposal on marshals. I mean, that is clearly well outside the scope of the cruise

lines.

Captain WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I would agree. I would say that

the upgrading—and we are in the process of doing that on an ongoing basis—of both the technologies that we are using and the number of CCTV cameras that are positioned around the ship is an

area that I am sure we could improve on. Although we have hundreds and hundreds of cameras presently on board the ships, I

think an audit and a review of the areas—again, going back to certain privacy issues—that we could perhaps increase some of the

coverage on the vessels.

Mr. SHAYS. I mean, bottom line is you are not going to have a

camera on someone’s individual balcony.

Captain WRIGHT. No, clearly not.

Mr. MANDIGO. No.

Mr. SHAYS. But I would think in the places where other people

would have access in public, then there would be a logic to the fact

that you could have, and probably do have, a number of cameras.

Mr. MANDIGO. Correct.

Captain WRIGHT. Correct.

Mr. SHAYS. I would appreciate it if both your companies would—

I am requesting a more formal response in writing to this document because we would be looking at this document as a discussion

vehicle.

Captain WRIGHT. Sure.

Mr. SHAYS. If you could provide a response in the next 3 to 4

weeks, that would be helpful.

Captain WRIGHT. Absolutely.

Mr. SHAYS. Dr. Fox, did you want to say something?

Dr. FOX. I was going to add something, because I heard earlier

a discussion of changing some of the statistical criteria for what is

to be reported and what is not to be reported. May I make a comment about that?

Mr. SHAYS. Absolutely.

256

Dr. FOX. OK. As Mr. Kaye had said previously, it is somewhat

arbitrary as to whether you use $10,000 or $6,000 or $5,000, but

I do urge that if a change is considered, that there be some reasonable threshold. I mean, for example, Captain Wright here inadvertently has taken my pen. Now, it is not really a theft because he

had no intent to deprive me of this. And I am sure on board ship

there are sunglasses and cameras and lots of things get lost and

may get reported as something—someone stole my camera. That

maintaining a certain level of threshold, make sure that what is reported is substantial. One of the problems that the FBI has had

and now has is that a lion’s share of the Part 1 crimes, the serious

crimes, aren’t serious. They are larcenies of $25 or $50. You don’t

want to be the victim of that, but it is not a homicide.

Mr. SHAYS. Dr. Fox, I totally agree with you. But I am struck by

the fact that a more significant statistic are not robberies. I saw

you give him back the pen, sir.

Dr. FOX. I am just letting him borrow it.

Mr. SHAYS. After you basically dissed him. [Laughter.]

I just wanted to make a point. You need counseling. He is the

one who is paying your bill here.

Dr. FOX. Yes.

Mr. SHAYS. But what seems more logical to me is that a theft is

more significant and more likely on board a ship than a robbery,

and yet thefts are not reported unless they reach to a level—I

mean, they don’t appear to be reported.

Dr. FOX. But there should be some level. We should not do like

the FBI did, which is to remove the minimum threshold. There

should be a minimum threshold or else you just are getting

swamped with lots of very small numbers. I mean, lots of crimes

that are very low-level severity. So whether it be $10,000 or $5,000

or $3,000, some decision can be made, but I would urge that it be

some reasonable threshold.

Mr. SHAYS. Now, dealing with statistics, we are told that the industry will go, Dr. Fox, from 10.5 million to 20 million in about 5

years, which is a huge increase. And Captain Wright, is that statistic pretty accurate?

Captain WRIGHT. I am not familiar with it myself, but we are

certainly going through some remarkable growth.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just say that the statistic that has been

thrown around to us—and maybe ‘‘throw’’ is the right word, because it is an estimate—that it will grow significantly in the next

5 years, almost double. And if that is true, Dr. Fox, what is your

sense of what happens to the statistics? Do they go up proportionally, or is it likely that we would see a shift one way or the other?

Dr. FOX. Well, if nothing different is done in terms of prevention,

then one would expect that as the passenger count, as the number

of—actually, as the number of ships increases in the—that the

crimes on ships would increase. That is the raw number, the incidents. The rate shouldn’t change. Hopefully, you know, as some of

these do make sense and there are other ideas that the industry

implements on their own, that the rate will decline even as the

number of passengers increases.

257

Mr. SHAYS. I believe a previous year we were told a statistic of

13 missing and it has jumped to 24. What happened to move that

number up?

Mr. MANDIGO. You increased the number of years, sir, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. I thought it was 3 to 3. Is it——

Mr. MANDIGO. Originally it was 2 years.

Mr. SHAYS. Oh, 2 to 3?

Mr. MANDIGO. That is correct.

Mr. SHAYS. OK, thank you.

Oh, just the last point of questioning. I leave with a sense that

we have gone from saying statistics aren’t reported, that were reported voluntarily, to where there is a law that requires it. But the

industry also led me to believe that it was voluntary. Is this a

change in tactic or a new discovery or what, in terms of its presentation to this committee, Captain Wright?

Captain WRIGHT. It appears to me—I was not present during the

first hearing—however, it seems to me it was just a

miscommunication, if you will, that we do have voluntary standards, we are reporting above and beyond what the law and the FBI

specifically requests, whereas there is a component of our reporting

that is also mandatory, as Mr. Kaye expressed today.

Mr. SHAYS. So what we need to sort out as the subcommittee is

what is the legal requirement and what are those statistics—and

Dr. Fox, we may get back to you on that—versus what they do

above and beyond. So what would be helpful is for both of your

companies to tell us what is required by law and then what you

do above and beyond. That would be helpful. And, you know, within 3 to 4 weeks would be helpful—sooner, obviously, but—and let

me just conclude by saying, so, I have listened to a lot in this hearing that would tend to add to your side of the argument, except for

the fact that we had six witnesses who basically felt in very real

terms, and I tend to buy into their view, that they were and still

are not treated with the respect you would want yourselves to be

treated if you were going through the same experience. And so

what I would request is we are going to monitor what kind of problems they continue to have. Part of our feeling of a sense that you

all are hearing what we are saying is how they are treated. I am

not talking in any way about financial compensation, nothing in

that direction. I am just talking about information that enables

them to understand what happened or didn’t happen.

So that would be my request.

Is there any closing comment that anyone wants to make? Dr.

Fox.

Dr. FOX. What I would suggest—now, I am going to add an item

which isn’t on this list. And maybe it is done by some cruise lines,

maybe it is not, but I will throw it out. It is based on my understanding of what we did in the criminal justice system. Of course,

historically it had been problem of do victims feel like they are

being listened to and do they feel that the criminal justice system

cares about their rights? One of the best things was the development of victim/witness advocates, essentially individuals who were

trained at communicating, listening to victims. It may not be a bad

idea, when you have a crew size of over 1,000 or 900 or whatever

258

the number is, that at least one of those individuals be trained as

a victim/witness advocate who specifically understands how to communicate with victims and be their advocate.

Mr. SHAYS. You know, I would like to add it to the list that was

presented, because frankly, whether that person is on board ship

would be helpful, an ombudsman—maybe you have them—but in

your company. If the New York Times and other papers have someone who analyzes how well they are doing to report the news fairly,

it might be, given that you represent, both of you together, your

companies represent a huge part of the market. You are almost a

monopoly in one sense. And I tend to believe when you get this big,

you tend to become a little insensitive. And this may be a way to

deal with some very real problems and do it on your own without

the Government injecting itself. But someone who would be actually empowered to present a strong position on the part of the victim to your company.

Captain WRIGHT. Sure.

Mr. SHAYS. If you would consider that, I think it would be an interesting idea.

Captain WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent recommendation. The irony of this entire discussion is that our whole

business, our whole product is treating people fabulously and making sure they have a great vacation. And the victims who spoke

today and the experiences that they have had, the tragedies that

they have incurred, it is inexcusable from our side. And each one

of them, I believe, had its own element of wrongdoing on our part,

where we did not follow our procedures, we did not perform as we

should have performed. But these incidences do not represent the

bulk of our operations.

We are very proud on the statistics that are out there. And we

are always looking for ways to improve. There is a big part of our

maritime philosophy, if you will, of having a habit of continuous

improvement and looking at lessons learned. And I can assure you

that every one of these events, at least from our company’s perspective, will be analyzed as to where did we mess up and how can we

avoid doing that in the future. Because it is certainly the last thing

that we want to see happen, but unfortunately there are examples

where it has occurred.

Typically, when you go and do an investigation—I know the

NTSB, NASA, the military is very familiar with this—you discover

almost always there is an error chain. Very rarely is it one single

mistake that one single person or crew member made that resulted

in something happening. If you go back and do the detail work, you

are going to find it is a series of things where the system failed,

there was a systemic failure. And you need to understand that.

That is something that we do on a regular basis, and I think the

chairman’s subcommittee is helping to that end.

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. Any other comments before we adjourn?

Mr. MANDIGO. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Let me again thank you for staying so late and being

so patient. We do appreciate it. And if there are still any families

here who have had some experiences that they would like for me

to know about and my staff, we will just stay around and talk to

you privately about anything that you may want to tell us.

259

So with that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 7:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

Æ