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

27–923 PDF 2006

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY

JOINT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, 

EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL 

RELATIONS

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 

DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

DECEMBER 13, 2005

Serial No. 109–148

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)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director 

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director 

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian/Senior Counsel 

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 

DR. R. NICHOLAS PALARINO, Senior Policy Analyst 

ROBERT A. BRIGGS, Clerk 

ANDREW SU, Minority Professional Staff Member 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana, Chairman 

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California 

C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland 

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

J. MARC WHEAT, Staff Director 

MALIA HOLST, Clerk 

TONY HAYWOOD, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on December 13, 2005 ...................................................................... 1

Statement of: 

Crye, Michael J., president, International Council of Cruise Lines; Gregory M. Purdy, director of security, safety, security and environment, 

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.; and Charles E. Mandigo, director, fleet 

security, Holland America Line, Inc. ........................................................... 147

Crye, Michael J. ......................................................................................... 147

Mandigo, Charles E. .................................................................................. 178

Purdy, Gregory M. ..................................................................................... 166

Swecker, Chris, Assistant Director, Criminal Investigation Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation; Rear Admiral Wayne Justice, Director 

of Operations Policy, U.S. Coast Guard, accompanied by Rear Admiral 

John Crowley, Judge Advocate General, U.S. Coast Guard; and Rear 

Admiral James E. McPherson, Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy ....... 81

Crowley, John ............................................................................................ 94

Justice, Wayne, .......................................................................................... 94

McPherson, James E. ................................................................................ 109

Swecker, Chris ........................................................................................... 81

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

Crye, Michael J., president, International Council of Cruise Lines, prepared statement of ........................................................................................ 151

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maryland, prepared statement of ............................................................ 131

Justice, Rear Admiral Wayne, Director of Operations Policy, U.S. Coast 

Guard, prepared statement of ...................................................................... 96

Maloney, Hon. Carolyn B., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 6

Mandigo, Charles E., director, fleet security, Holland America Line, Inc., 

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 180

McPherson, Rear Admiral James E.,Judge Advocate General, U.S. Navy: 

Daily Terrorism Brief ................................................................................ 143

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 110

Mica, Hon. John L., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida, prepared statement of .................................................................... 215

Purdy, Gregory M., director of security, safety, security and environment, 

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., prepared statement of .............................. 169

Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida, prepared statement of ................................................................ 214

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

of Connecticut: 

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

Various prepared statements ................................................................... 15

Souder, Hon. Mark E., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana, prepared statement of ............................................................... 9

Swecker, Chris, Assistant Director, Criminal Investigation Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation, prepared statement of ................................. 84

(1)

INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005, 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, EMERGING

THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, JOINT WITH

THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE, DRUG POLICY, AND HUMAN RESOURCES, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:09 p.m., in room 

2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher Shays 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging 

Threats, and International Relations) presiding. 

Present from the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging 

Threats, and International Relations: Representatives Shays, Duncan, Maloney, and Ruppersberger. 

Present from the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Drug Policy, 

and Human Resources: Representatives Souder and Cummings. 

Also present: Representative Norton. 

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

Nicholas Palarino, Ph.D., senior policy advisor; Robert A. Briggs, 

clerk; Marc LaRoche, intern; Tony Haywood, minority counsel; Andrew Su, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk. 

Mr. SHAYS. A quorum being present, this joint hearing of the 

Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations and the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, 

Drug Policy, and Human Resources entitled, ‘‘International Maritime Security’’ is called to order. 

Just 2 days ago, Coast Guard officials began conducting search 

operations in the waters north of the Bahamas because a cruise 

ship passenger was reported missing. In early November, modernday brigands fired mortars at a cruise ship off the coast of Somalia. 

These are two recent additions to a growing manifest of unexplained disappearances, unsolved crimes, and brazen acts of lawlessness on the high seas. According to the industry experts, a wide 

range of criminal activities, including drug smuggling, sexual assaults, piracy, and terrorism, threaten the security of maritime 

travel and trade. Today we begin an examination of the complex 

web of laws, treaties, regulations, and commercial practices meant 

to protect lives and property in an increasingly dangerous world. 

Ocean travel puts passengers and crew in a distant, isolated environment and subjects them to unique risks and vulnerabilities. 

Like small cities, cruise ships experience crimes, from petty to proVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
2

foundly tragic. But city dwellers know the risks of urban life, and 

no one falls off a city never to be heard from again. Cruise passengers can be blinded to the very real perils of the sea by ship operators unwilling to interrupt the party for security warnings. After 

an incident occurs, a thorough investigation can be profoundly difficult when the crime scene literally floats away, on schedule, to 

the next port of call. 

Jurisdictional and bureaucratic tangles can also impede investigation and resolution of crimes at sea. For purely economic reasons, most commercial ships fly under foreign flags. Passengers 

cannot assume the protection of U.S. laws and law enforcement 

will be available in time, if at all. When events involve citizens of 

different nations in the territorial waters of a third, all three can 

assert some jurisdictional claim. While these legal and diplomatic 

niceties are being resolved, the crime trail grows cold and crucial 

evidence may go overboard or melt into the crowd ashore. 

The recently promulgated National Strategy for Maritime Security and the Global Maritime Response Plan should better integrate and accelerate Federal agency assistance to those attacked at 

sea. We will monitor implementation of these new policies closely. 

Lack of hard data on maritime crime rates and trends engenders 

a false sense of security and frustrates efforts to address emerging 

problems. Some companies report incidents voluntarily to the Federal Bureau of Investigation or international organizations. But 

others do not, and no truly industry-wide data is available to help 

discerning customers assess the real risks of transoceanic travel. 

So we asked those most involved in responding to maritime crises to describe current legal and operational security standards. 

For instance, what statistics are kept and who keeps them? What 

information is given to passengers on the risks of international 

travel by sea? How are missing person reports investigated? How 

and when is it determined if a crime is involved? How are jurisdictional conflicts resolved? Are there better practices and technologies that should be used to protect passengers in the alluring 

but unforgiving marine environment? 

Last July, George Smith and his new wife, Jennifer, thought 

they were launching their lives together on a honeymoon cruise. 

But after only 10 days abroad George disappeared under circumstances still being investigated by the FBI and Turkish officials. His family, and many others who have contacted us, seek closure, await justice, and ask that no more families endure avoidable 

tragedies. 

We hear their call for safer seas, are determined, are absolutely 

determined to pursue this investigation, and we look for much 

greater candor, accountability, and responsiveness from those entrusted to carry precious cargo into a vast, inherently hazardous 

realm. 

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

3


27923.001
4


27923.002
5

Mr. SHAYS. At this time the Chair would recognize Mrs. Maloney, 

the Honorable Member from New York. 

Mrs. MALONEY. I thank the chairman. Elijah Cummings, the 

ranking member, is on the floor at this point. He will be back 

shortly. 

I add my voice in thanking you, Chairman Shays, for holding 

this hearing today about international maritime security and the 

safety of cruise ship passengers, particularly American passengers. 

Millions of people take trips on cruise ships every year, and these 

Americans expect to have an enjoyable vacation, yet they also may 

unknowingly face dangers, including drug trafficking, smuggling, 

international piracy, and even terrorist attacks. 

We have seen media reports this year of passengers who have 

disappeared while aboard cruise ships and allegations that these 

ships did not make an effort to inform their families. I want to say 

that there are roughly 300 large cruise ships that operate mostly 

under foreign flags, but many of them embark from New York City, 

the port that I am honored to represent. They are important employers, important to the economy. But it is also very important 

that our citizens be protected on these ships. 

I am astonished at the number of alleged international piracy 

acts and even some terrorist attacks on cruise ships. And I am also 

deeply concerned that there appears not to be any statistics or hard 

data kept in an organized way on the safety of certain ships on the 

incidents that happen and really suggest that we include a cruise 

ship violence or deaths or missing persons in the FBI CODIS international and national data base that they now keep on other 

crimes in our country. 

Due to the fact that we have such a distinguished set of speakers 

and many panelists, I request to have the text of my statement put 

in the record, and I am very hopeful that today’s hearing will shed 

important light on some of these issues and will fundamentally 

lead to increased safety and protection for Americans and others 

who enjoy these cruise ship vacations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Carolyn B. Maloney follows:]

6


27923.003
7

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady. 

This is a joint hearing of both the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, which I 

chair. We have oversight over Defense, State Department, Homeland Security, and Coast Guard. The Subcommittee on Criminal 

Justice, Drug Policy, and Human Resources is chaired by Mark 

Souder. This is a joint hearing of our subcommittees, and Mr. 

Souder was stuck in an airplane. I didn’t realize you would be back 

as quickly as you have been, or I would have held up the hearing. 

I was told it would be a little longer than that. So welcome. Mr. 

Souder has the floor. 

Mr. SOUDER. I thank the chairman, and it is a privilege to do 

this joint hearing. We are both senior members of Homeland Security, too, so this cuts multiple ways. I appreciate his efforts in particular in organizing this hearing, and I look forward to addressing 

this important subject. 

The security of the world’s shipping lanes is a global issue that 

impacts global economic growth and stability. The United States 

needs to ensure that the oceans are safe for lawful private and 

public activities. 

In October 2005, the Department of Homeland Security, in collaboration with the Department of Defense and the Department of 

State announced the completion and final approval of eight plans 

to promote maritime security. As we will hear today, one of these 

plans, the Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan, aims to coordinate the U.S. Government’s response to threats against the 

United States and its interests on the high seas by establishing 

roles and responsibilities that enable the Government to respond 

quickly and decisively. The plan identifies the lead U.S. agency for 

incidents that involve U.S. citizens or interests, including 

counterterrorism operations, the detection, interdiction, and disposition of targeted cargo, people, and vessels, the attacks of vessels with U.S. citizens aboard or those affecting U.S. interests anywhere in the world. 

This new plan and process establishes the protocols and procedures for achieving a coordinated response and ensuring a desired 

outcome. I look forward to discussing these maritime security 

issues today with representatives from the Department of Defense, 

Coast Guard and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and hearing 

about the progress and improvements we have made with regard 

to maritime threats and responsive capabilities. 

Piracy and criminal acts against ships are not only happening in 

action adventure films. These incidents occur regularly within the 

maritime domain. According to the most recent International Maritime Organization’s crime report, July through September 2005, 

which compiles reports for the worldwide maritime industry, in the 

last 3-month report period there were 27 crew members that were 

held hostage or kidnapped; 15 crew members were assaulted; the 

fate of 11 crew member was unknown; 7 crew members were injured; and 1 ship and 2 tugboats and barges were hijacked or missing. All of these incidents within a 3-month period. 

The cruise ship industry is not immune to piracy or criminal activity. On November 5, 2005, the Bahamian-flagged vessel ship 

Seabourn Spirit was approached by two armed small boats about 

8

100 miles off the coast of Somalia. The cruise ship was apparently 

able to thwart their attackers by maneuvering to avoid being 

boarded, but only after rocket-propelled grenades were fired by the 

pirates. The Seabourn Spirit had 43 U.S. citizens on board. 

The FBI reports that from fiscal year 2000 through June 2005, 

they opened 305 cases addressing crimes on the high seas. Over 

the past 5 years, sexual assaults made up 45 percent of the cases, 

and physical assaults were 22 percent of the cases on cruise ships 

that were reported to the FBI. Missing persons comprised 10 percent of the cases opened, and death investigations made up 8 percent of the reported cases. 

As common as these crimes are, the U.S. Government’s response 

to crimes in the maritime domain is oftentimes complicated and 

the investigations are prolonged. In the case of cruise ships, most 

are foreign-flagged and, thus, fall outside of U.S. law enforcement 

jurisdiction when not in a U.S. port and within U.S. territorial 

seas. Consequently, U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies are required to seek permission from the ship’s flag state before they can 

board the vessel and begin a criminal investigation. The U.S. Government’s response can also be dependent upon the type of crime 

that was committed, the location of the ship when the crime was 

committed, the nationality of the subject or victim, and the United 

States’ relationship with other affected countries. 

Once a crime has been discovered or reported on board a cruise 

ship, any delay in preserving evidence can potentially lead to the 

loss of evidence. I hope to learn today what responsibilities the 

cruise ships bear in preserving the crime scene and any related evidence until U.S. law enforcement officials arrive on board and can 

begin investigating the incident. Cruise ships are often compared 

to self-sustaining floating cities. If the vast majority of passengers 

on board the cruise ship are American citizens, is there a need for 

the U.S. Government to require a continuous law enforcement presence on board these mobile cities? 

I look forward to discussing whether jurisdictional conflicts are 

a major impediment to the security of U.S. citizens while traveling 

on foreign-flagged vessels and if Congress needs to change the laws 

to better protect U.S. citizens. I would like to thank the panelists 

today for your participation, and we look forward to your testimony 

and insight into this important topic. Additionally, I would like to 

thank the families of those who have been victimized on cruise 

ships for being here today and for submitting written statements 

for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Mark E. Souder follows:]

9


27923.004
10


27923.005
11

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

At this time the Chair would recognize Congresswoman Norton. 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank the two astute Chairs for understanding that the relationship between the two subcommittees on this issue is joined at the 

hip and that we need to both look at this matter, not because we 

fear or want people not to go on cruise ships, but because they are 

increasingly popular and our job is to look at the safety of American citizens wherever they happen to be. 

You know, I have never been on a cruise ship. I feel very deprived. And now I don’t know whether I am supposed to be afraid 

to go on one or not. Maybe this hearing will enlighten me on that 

score. 

A cruise ship is not a public conveyance, and normally, you 

know, a private business that goes on the high seas, there is a lot 

of incentive—namely, liability—if the passengers are from the 

United States of America to take every precaution. But here, of 

course, the interests of other nations are involved. Once we get into 

the complicated conflict of laws area, have mercy on us. 

When I learned that more than 300 crimes were committed on 

the high seas involving American passengers, I was at first 

alarmed. But, you see, I don’t know enough about what those 

crimes involve, and I would rather much think that most of them 

had to do with the kind of crimes that go on in the United States 

of America, of Americans, by Americans, than terrorist crimes, or 

else I would have heard about them. Therefore, this notion that 

has been raised by my colleagues before me about data could not 

be more important. We need to know more than we know, and it 

needs to be readily available. In other words, I need to know 

whether the problem is with thugs or terrorists, and so do the people who run ships, because that way they can decide perhaps more 

efficiently where their own resources should go. 

I have to tell you, though, that even one of these incidents involving piracy is bound to be much larger than life, to hurt the industry, and, for that matter, to say to Americans here is yet another place you cannot go. You know, I remember the Achille Lauro 

matter. That was so long ago I had to kind of dredge my memory. 

But I read an article, and let me just read a few of the words that 

I am sure others read as well. This is from the Miami Herald. It 

spoke of the attack that I think one of my colleagues has mentioned off the waters of Somalia where crew members fended them 

off with hoses and sonic devices that blast painful loud noises in 

a directed beam. They were talking about pirates, because obviously a U.S. ship or a passenger cruise ship, otherwise known as 

a luxury ship, is an inviting target. In some ways it is an inviting 

target, and apparently the challenge was taken up. Nobody was injured or killed, unlike the horrible incident aboard the Achille 

Lauro, but it is time enough now to look into the nature of the 

crimes to see whether the industry is taking care of it by itself and 

to see, importantly, if the interests of the United States of America 

are taken care of in the way we regulate these ships and indicate 

our expectations of them when they have passengers of the United 

States of America aboard. 

So I thank you again, both of you, for this hearing. 

12

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlelady, and at this time the Chair 

would recognize Mr. Duncan. Thank you for being here. 

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

thank you for calling this hearing. I am now serving my 9th full 

term and part of a 10th term. In all of that time I have served on 

several committees and several subcommittees under many different chairmen, both Democrats and Republicans, and I have always felt that Chairman Shays was one of the most active and one 

of the finest chairmen I have ever served under. And, of course, 

Chairman Souder is a good friend of mine also. I do not happen to 

serve on his subcommittee, but this hearing today is another example of how this subcommittee that Chairman Shays chairs is certainly one of the most active and interesting subcommittees in the 

Congress. 

It is good that we are hopefully going to learn more about this. 

For instance, in skimming over the testimony of the witnesses and 

also a report that we have from the staff, it says that there are 

only about 50 crimes reported each year to the FBI of the 10 million passengers who travel on the cruise lines each year. In the last 

2 years, there have been 13 missing people, and certainly we do not 

want to minimize the tragedy, and I do not mean to do that at all, 

of anyone who is killed or missing. On the other hand, there are 

some 2,000 people that go missing each day in this country, and 

from the looks of some of those statistics it looks like that it is far, 

far safer to go on a cruise than it is to just walk down the street 

in any town or city in America. 

On the other hand, Chairman Souder mentioned some crimes or 

statistics that certainly should be of concern, and I guess one question is, are we making sure that all of these crimes are reported? 

And I understand the International Council of Cruise Lines, there 

is some sort of agreement, I see from the staff, that these crimes 

are required to be reported. But we have this danger today of doing 

legislation or reacting in response to what is being emphasized on 

the 24-hour news channels at a particular time, and certainly the 

terrible tragedy that happened to the newlyweds George and Jennifer Smith is certainly a sad thing and a terrible thing. But, on 

the other hand, I know that when Katrina happened, we immediately sent down $10 billion, and then we came back and very 

quickly voted another $62 billion, and then it turned out that people all over the country thought we overreacted there and sent perhaps too much money too fast, and then people started questioning 

that. 

So we cannot blame piracy on the cruise lines, I would not think. 

The terrorism, of course, everybody has really toughened up on 

that, as they should have, since September 11th. But I understand 

that the passenger lists are being given to the proper authorities 

and every piece of luggage that goes on one of these cruise ships 

is being screened. 

So maybe more needs to be done. On the other hand, if the problem is consistent with these statistics that are in the materials I 

have been given by the staff, then in some ways the cruise line industry should be commended. But if we need to do more or if something is not being reported or we need more information, then that 

13

is good, too. If this problem is greater than it appears on the surface, then certainly this hearing should help show that. 

So I thank both chairmen for calling this hearing today. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful comments, 

and that is the way we need to approach this hearing. We need to 

go wherever the truth leads us. Whether it is an issue of law or 

regulation or administrative efforts or whether, in fact, it is getting 

the industry to just do a better job, it may be some or all of the 

above. 

But one thing I can assure the gentleman is this will not be the 

only hearing, and it will be thorough, and everyone will have an 

opportunity to state the issue as clearly as they can. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I certainly appreciate that approach, and that 

is the approach that I assumed that you would take. Thank you. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, and I thank the gentleman for his kind 

words. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Chairman Shays and Chairman Souder, I 

want to thank you for focusing on this issue. I serve on both your 

subcommittees, and you do go to the relevant issues. 

I am familiar with port security. I represent the port of Baltimore. I also am co-Chair of the National Port Security Caucus. We 

have 539 ports in this country, and I am also on the Intelligence 

Committee. So I deal a lot in these areas. 

What is really relevant about this hearing today is that a lot of 

our focus with respect to ports generally has been more on weapons 

of mass destruction and terrorism and issues such as that. So I 

think this hearing today is extremely relevant. 

I also would like to acknowledge the Coast Guard, who I think 

is one of the better agencies we have in this country, and our country should be proud of their professionalism and the dedication of 

the members of the Coast Guard. They have done an excellent job. 

They showed that in Katrina. I think they have done a good job. 

Now, maritime security is a very complicated issue. There are 

different times when different agencies and different countries 

have the right to board vessels and protect the people and the vessel. We must answer the questions, though, about safety. What 

laws apply in what situations? The FBI and the Coast Guard in 

our area, in our jurisdiction, share the burden of enforcing maritime jurisdiction. But who takes the lead? Who is ultimately responsible? What if there is a difference of opinion? 

I think Katrina is another issue that showed that we need to 

have a plan and that we need to have someone in charge who is 

going to determine what the system is and how we are going to enforce it. 

Now, it is important to determine who is in charge, as I said, a 

system in place, when the cruise ships travel outside of our jurisdiction and our borders. Each year approximately 10 million passengers take cruises. I think there are about 300 cruise ships that 

deal with these 10 million passengers, and one-half, or 5 million of 

those passengers, come from North America. So it is an extremely 

relevant issue to our country and how we deal with the issue. 

14

Now, in fairness to the cruise ship industry, I have been told by 

the Coast Guard that the maritime travel on the cruise ships is 

among the safest modes of transportation available. The International Council of Cruise Lines should be commended for maintaining standards as it relates to safety. But high standards are 

not enough—the reason why we are here today—and we must continually work to improve. 

Now, one question that we can ask and that I think is relevant—

and I am going to ask it when we get to questions—is the issue 

about deadlines. We know that there is a lot of money involved in 

this industry. We know that when you leave one port, that ship has 

to get back to another port to pick up maybe 2,000 passengers. If 

they are late and they are not there, there are going to be a lot 

of unhappy people. And I just wonder what the system is as far as 

deadlines. Do we force our captains of those ships to travel into 

storms and unsafe places instead of waiting it out or taking another direction because of deadlines, because we have to pick up 

the next passengers? Because it is extremely important that the 

No. 1 priority should be safety, even if it means a delay. And I 

would like to know what that system is because I have heard many 

complaints about going through storms, you know, not having a 

very positive experience, but the captain has to go to the next port 

to pick up the new group that is coming in. 

It is critical that we all work together, and that is why we are 

here today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. 

Let me take the opportunity to ask unanimous consent that all 

members of the subcommittees 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 may be permitted to include their written statements in the record, and without objection, so ordered. And I am also going to ask unanimous 

consent that Ms. Jennifer Hagel Smith, wife of Mr. George A. 

Smith IV, and Mr. George Smith and Ms. Maureen Smith, and Ms. 

Bree Smith, family of Mr. George A. Smith IV, be allowed to submit a statement for the record; and Ms. Jean Scavone, mother of 

Mr. James Christopher Scavone, be allowed to submit a statement, 

and Mr. Michael Pham, son of Mr. Hue V. Pham and Mrs. Hue T. 

Tran, be permitted to submit a statement; and Mr. and Mrs. Kendall Carver, parents of Ms. Merrian Lynn Carver, be permitted to 

submit a statement; and Ms. Rita Sittig, mother of Mr. Christopher 

Caldwell, be allowed to submit a statement; and also Mr. and Mrs. 

Ira Leonard as well. And then we have two statements from attorneys, one representing the Smith family and one representing the 

Dias family, and without objection, their statements will be submitted for the record. 

[The information referred to follows:]

15


27923.013
16


27923.014
17


27923.015
18


27923.016
19


27923.017
20


27923.018
21


27923.019
22


27923.020
23


27923.021
24


27923.022
25


27923.023
26


27923.024
27


27923.025
28


27923.026
29


27923.027
30


27923.028
31


27923.029
32


27923.030
33


27923.031
34


27923.032
35


27923.033
36


27923.034
37


27923.035
38


27923.036
39


27923.037
40


27923.038
41


27923.039
42


27923.040
43


27923.041
44


27923.042
45


27923.043
46


27923.044
47


27923.045
48


27923.046
49


27923.047
50


27923.048
51


27923.049
52


27923.050
53


27923.051
54


27923.052
55


27923.053
56


27923.054
57


27923.055
58


27923.056
59


27923.057
60


27923.058
61


27923.059
62


27923.060
63


27923.061
64


27923.062
65


27923.063
66


27923.064
67


27923.065
68


27923.066
69


27923.067
70


27923.068
71


27923.069
72


27923.070
73


27923.071
74


27923.072
75


27923.073
76


27923.074
77


27923.075
78


27923.076
79


27923.077
80


27923.078
81

Mr. SHAYS. Their statements are also available to the press, and 

before swearing in our witnesses, I want to say that we considered 

having the families open up this hearing and some of the families 

were willing to do it and some were wondering if it was what they 

wanted to do at this time. We will have another hearing in which 

all family members will participate. We thought we would make 

this a more generic or more macro hearing, not on particular cases 

right now, and then we would decide how we would determine 

what hearings to have in the future, and there will be other hearings that will follow this one. 

At this time we will swear in our witnesses, and first let me acknowledge them: Mr. Chris Swecker, Assistant Director, Criminal 

Investigation Division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI]; 

Rear Admiral Wayne Justice, Director for Operations Policy, U.S. 

Coast Guard, accompanied by Rear Admiral John Crowley, Judge 

Advocate General, U.S. Coast Guard; and another statement or a 

third statement submitted by Rear Admiral James McPherson, 

Judge Advocate General for the U.S. Navy. 

Gentlemen, as you know, this is an investigative committee and 

we swear in all of our witnesses, and I would ask you to rise. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

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

affirmative, and I am going to give the chair to Mr. Souder, who 

will take care of chairing. 

Mr. SOUDER [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Swecker, you will have the opening statement. 

STATEMENTS OF CHRIS SWECKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION; REAR ADMIRAL WAYNE JUSTICE, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS POLICY, U.S. COAST GUARD, ACCOMPANIED BY REAR ADMIRAL JOHN CROWLEY, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, U.S. COAST GUARD; AND REAR ADMIRAL 

JAMES E. McPHERSON, JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, U.S. 

NAVY 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER 

Mr. SWECKER. Good afternoon, Chairman Shays, Chairman 

Souder, ranking members, and members of the subcommittees. We 

appreciate the opportunity to come before you today. 

As you know, approximately 10 million Americans are expected 

to travel abroad this year on vessels that navigate international 

waters. As a matter of course, some of them will become victims 

of a crime. The FBI’s ability to assist our fellow Americans who 

may fall victim to crime in international waters will be affected by 

a variety of factors, including the type of crime that was committed, where the ship was when it was committed, where the ship 

departed, where it arrives, and under which nation’s laws the ship 

is registered, the nationality of the subject or victim, the laws of 

other affects countries, international law, and the United States’ 

relationship with other affected countries. 

Over the last 5 years, the FBI opened 305 cases of crime on the 

high seas. Sexual and physical assaults on cruise ships were the 

leading maritime crimes reported to and investigated by the FBI, 

82

at 45 and 22 percent, respectively. Missing persons cases comprised 

10 percent of cases opened, and death investigations comprised 8 

percent. Recently, incidents of piracy have been increasingly common in some parts of the world, the most recent, of course, being 

the attack on the cruise ship containing U.S. citizens off the coast 

of Somalia in November 2005. 

Missing persons cases are more sporadic in nature, and, unfortunately, in 75 percent of these cases, a body is never found. Most 

deaths reported occur on commercial ships. Death investigations 

are less common on cruise ships and private vessels. 

Because these offenses occur in international waters and involve 

the citizens or interests of other countries, the exercise of the U.S. 

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction will encroach to some 

degree on the interests and sovereignty of another nation. Therefore, our diplomatic relations with other involved countries, the existence and applicability of any treaties with these countries, and 

the extent to which we are ultimately dependent upon another 

country’s mutual cooperation and assistance will often determine 

the actual extent of U.S. authority to investigate and prosecute 

U.S. extraterritorial offenses against U.S. citizens. 

The principal law under which the U.S. exercises is special maritime and territorial jurisdiction is set forth in Section 7 of Title 18 

of the U.S. Code. Under this statute, the United States has jurisdiction over crimes committed on a ship if: the ship, regardless of 

flag, is a U.S.-owned vessel, either in whole or in part, regardless 

of the nationality of the victim or the perpetrator; or the crime occurs in the U.S. territorial sea, within 12 miles of the coast, regardless of the nationality of the vessel, the victim, or the perpetrator; 

or the victim or perpetrator is a U.S. national on any vessel that 

departed from or will arrive in a U.S. port. 

The most important point to emphasize in these matters is that 

in all cases of suspected criminal activity or terrorism, the FBI 

should be contacted by the ship’s personnel or passengers, regardless of potential jurisdictional issues. The FBI now has approximately 59 legal attache offices around the globe. These offices have 

developed close working relationships with our international law 

enforcement partners to assist in these investigations, and the 

number of these legal attache offices will continue to grow in the 

coming years. 

As in any other matter, the FBI will first determine if we have 

jurisdiction to investigate the matter and, if so, what assistance we 

will require from other U.S. or foreign law enforcement authorities. 

If the vessel has docked or will be docking in a U.S. port, FBI 

agents will be able to conduct the investigation in much the same 

manner as in any other investigation. If the vessel has docked or 

will be docking in a foreign port, the FBI Legat office will work 

with and assist foreign authorities to the greatest extent possible 

to protect U.S. citizens and interests. They will not, however, be 

able to conduct an investigation as if they were on U.S. soil. In 

many cases, they will have to depend on the cooperation of foreign 

authorities, who will actually conduct the investigation. However, 

other countries may allow us to take a more active role in the investigations. In general, most countries are cooperative and work 

83

with us to develop evidence, to provide that evidence to us, and to 

assist our efforts to prosecute appropriate cases in U.S. courts. 

As in any other investigation, the FBI will attempt to conduct, 

or to have conducted, any necessary investigation and preserve any 

potential evidence as soon as it is practically possible or reasonable. The FBI will attempt to board vessels prior to their docking 

or immediately upon their arrival in port to begin an investigation, 

if that is reasonable and practical. We will directly, or indirectly in 

cooperation with foreign counterparts, conduct all interviews, collect all evidence, and where appropriate, seek the indictment and 

prosecution of the case in U.S. courts. 

If the crime occurs within the reach of the U.S. Coast Guard, we 

work together to address any criminal threat. The key to this successful relationship has been and continues to be effective communication, intelligence sharing, coordination, and cooperation. 

I would like to give you a quick overview of the FBI’s roles and 

responsibilities under the National Strategy for Maritime Security 

and the Maritime Operational Threat Response Plan. 

The FBI’s maritime responsibilities have not changed as a result 

of the MOTR plan. However, in response to the President’s National Strategy for Maritime Security, we have initiated a maritime 

security program to prevent, disrupt, and defeat criminal acts of 

terrorism directed against maritime assets and provide 

counterterrorism preparedness, leadership, and assistance to Federal, State, and local agencies responsible for maritime security. 

The FBI currently has approximately 82 maritime liaison agents 

assigned to those field offices that have active commercial ports. 

The MLAs interact with private industry, State and local port authorities, to include law enforcement and other Federal agencies 

with maritime responsibilities, such as the Coast Guard. MLAs are 

assigned to Joint Terrorism Task Force squads in the field, and 

their ranks include special agents of the FBI, Coast Guard Investigative Service, Naval Criminal Investigative Service, as well as 

officers from local port authority and police departments. 

Chairmen and members of the subcommittees, thank you again 

for the opportunity to testify today, and I am not sure if we have 

time limits, but I am sure I am probably pushing mine right now. 

So thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Swecker follows:]

84


27923.079
85


27923.080
86


27923.081
87


27923.082
88


27923.083
89


27923.084
90


27923.085
91


27923.086
92


27923.087
93


27923.088
94

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you very much. 

Admiral Justice, thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL WAYNE JUSTICE AND ADMIRAL 

JOHN CROWLEY 

Admiral JUSTICE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, distinguished 

members. It is a pleasure for me and Rear Admiral John Crowley, 

the Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Coast Guard, to appear before you today to discuss jurisdiction and coordination of assistance 

in the context of international maritime security. 

The maritime domain covers nearly three-quarters of the Earth’s 

surface and is, by far, the greatest defining feature of our world. 

Plying this vast expanse are more than 40,000 large merchant 

ships and virtually uncountable numbers of small craft carrying 

people from place to place and nearly all the raw materials and finished products in modern trade. 

As mentioned, on November 5th this year two armed boats approached the Bahamian-flagged cruise ship Seabourn Spirit 100 

miles off the coast of Somalia, fired rocket-propelled grenades, and 

attempted to board the vessel, which had 43 American citizens on 

board. That crew implemented their required ship’s security plan 

and maneuvered to escape and evade their attackers. 

While no single nation has the authority or the resources to patrol and secure the entire maritime domain, the United States continues to lead the world’s efforts to achieve greater maritime security, and the Coast Guard is at the forefront of those efforts. Indeed, immediately following September 11th, the leadership and vision of the U.S. Government led to the creation of a modern, international ship and port security regime, ISPS, which appears to 

have contributed to thwarting the attempted piracy aboard the 

Seabourn Spirit. 

As the Nation’s primary maritime law enforcement agency, an 

armed force, and lead DHS agency for maritime security, the Coast 

Guard has significant authorities and capabilities with regard to 

international maritime security. However, the complex jurisdictional challenges presented by the global shipping industry and the 

vast size of the maritime environment require extensive cooperation between nations, agencies, and industry. 

Although there were 43 American citizens aboard Seabourn Spirit, that ship was subject to the jurisdiction of the Bahamas, and the 

U.S. citizens aboard here were, as a matter of law, constructively 

in the Bahamas. In any case involving suspect criminal activity directed at or aboard a foreign-flagged vessel on the high seas, close 

and immediate international cooperation is required to board the 

vessel at sea, investigate the facts, collect evidence, and sort out 

the jurisdiction of various states with interests in this matter. 

In fiscal year 2005, working with our interagency and international partners, the Coast Guard enhanced maritime homeland 

security by seizing over 300,000 pounds of cocaine at sea, much of 

it bound for the United States, and by bringing to the United 

States over 360 foreign nationals from foreign-flagged and stateless 

smuggling vessels for prosecution. This regime for interdicting and 

prosecuting drug smugglers is a model of success based on widely 

95

recognized international law and strong domestic implementing 

legislation. 

From a practical standpoint, the U.S. Government response option is dependent on how quickly the U.S. Government is notified 

of an incident and the availability of assets in the particular region. If available, any warship or Government vessel on non-commercial service may, with flag state consent, conduct a boarding to 

investigate or suppress suspected acts of piracy. Cases of piracy, 

like the Seabourn Spirit, are exactly what recent amendments to 

the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the 

Safety of Maritime Navigation, or SUA, address. The amended 

SUA provides unprecedented tools, including an expanded list of offenses and a comprehensive framework for boarding suspect vessels 

at sea to prevent and suppress acts of terrorism, violence at sea, 

and illicit WMD proliferation activities as they are committed. 

I note also that the amendments to SUA support the President’s 

Proliferation Security Initiative [PSI], which provides a framework 

for international cooperation to combat the spread of weapons of 

mass destruction, their means of delivery, and related materials 

throughout a variety of measures including maritime interdiction. 

The Maritime Operational Threat Response [MOTR], Plan is part 

of the President’s National Strategy for Maritime Security. The 

Maritime Operation Threat Response includes the deployment of 

capabilities and the use of force required to intercept, apprehend, 

exploit, and when necessary, defeat maritime threats that affect 

U.S. interests anywhere in the world. MOTR addresses the full 

range of maritime security threats, including actionable knowledge 

of or acts of terrorism, piracy, and other criminal and unlawful or 

hostile acts committed by state and non-state actors. The MOTR 

plan establishes the protocols and procedures for achieving a coordinated U.S. Government notification and will improve the ability of the United States to bring the right assets and authorities 

to bear when a maritime threat affects American interests anywhere in the world. 

The operational response to counter threats to U.S. citizens involving pirates or other non-state actors occurring aboard non-U.S. 

vessels in waters not subject to U.S. jurisdiction is operationally, 

logistically, and diplomatically challenging. The ISPS Code, amendments to the SUA Convention, the Proliferation Security Agreement, the National Strategy for Maritime Security, and the MOTR 

plan are some of the significant initiatives undertaken by the 

United States to increase operational options and better protect 

U.S. citizens and U.S. interests throughout the maritime domain in 

the 21st century. 

Thank you, sir, for the opportunity to testify today, and Rear Admiral Crowley and I will be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Justice follows:]

96


27923.089
97


27923.090
98


27923.091
99


27923.092
100


27923.093
101


27923.094
102


27923.095
103


27923.096
104


27923.097
105


27923.098
106


27923.099
107


27923.100
108


27923.101
109

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

Admiral Crowley, do you have an opening statement as well? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not. I stand behind Admiral Justice’s. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

Admiral McPherson. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL JAMES E. McPHERSON 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittees, good afternoon. My name is Rear Admiral Jim McPherson. I 

am the Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and it is my pleasure 

to appear before you today as the Department of Defense representative on the legal aspects of threats to Americans on board 

vessels traveling outside U.S. territorial waters. Thank you for this 

opportunity to appear before you. 

Protecting the United States, its citizens, and vital interests from 

attack is our highest priority. Piracy is one of the many forms in 

which such attacks can take place. Although the term ‘‘piracy’’ conjures up images of historical lore, the legal response to piracy is 

well settled and reflected in both international obligations and our 

own domestic law. While piracy is normally addressed within a law 

enforcement scheme and both the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

and the U.S. Coast Guard could be termed the first responders, the 

commanding officer of every U.S. Navy ship has a duty and an obligation to protect U.S. citizens from acts of piracy wherever they 

may occur. 

Again, thank you for this opportunity. I look forward to your 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral McPherson follows:]

110


27923.102
111


27923.103
112


27923.104
113

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

First I would like to ask unanimous consent that we have 10-

minute questioning periods so we can develop the questions. Hearing no objection, let me start out. There are so many different ways 

we could go, but let me start out first by pointing out to the two 

Admirals from the Coast Guard that it has been very helpful to 

have Commander Patrick DeQuattro on as a detailee to our subcommittee. In general, it is helpful to have the Coast Guard people 

on the Hill. And I want to say in his defense any wonderful questions or comments I make today are his. Any others that are off 

the wall are mine, and he should not bear responsibility. I want to 

make that clear at the beginning. 

Admiral Justice, you did a pretty thorough job of explaining how 

the new Marine Operational Threat Response would work in the 

case of the pirate attack. How is this substantially different than 

what we had in place in the Achille Lauro? 

Admiral JUSTICE. Currently, since 1978, we have what is called 

the PD–27 process. It is in use. We have coordinated thousands of 

maritime responses to drug and migrant interdiction on the high 

seas. As recently as yesterday, we used this again to effectively 

capture 14,000 pounds of cocaine in the eastern Pacific, one vessel. 

However, the MOTR plan improves the PD–27 process. It addresses a full range of maritime security threats, including acts of 

terrorism, piracy, and other criminal, unlawful, or hostile activities. 

The MOTR plan is a maritime-centric plan, whereas PD–27 is not. 

It applies to all maritime threats affecting U.S. interests, whereas 

PD–27 is non-maritime incidents. And, finally, the MOTR places 

initial coordination in the first responders’ hands, whereas the PD–

27 is a single State Department hub for coordination. It is a better 

plan, sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. Let me first ask a technical question that came up 

as I went through the information. Are there any crimes, Mr. 

Swecker and all the Admirals, reported to the Coast Guard or the 

Defense Department that would not be reported to the FBI? In 

other words, when we see the universe of statistics in front of us 

from the FBI, are those all the crimes that are reported on the high 

seas? Or do you each have kind of stovepiped information systems? 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, the short answer from the FBI’s perspective, 

is that we collect our own statistics based on what we work. I do 

not know of any other data that we receive or share regarding 

those crimes with the Coast Guard or the Navy. 

Mr. SOUDER. Admiral McPherson. 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Any crimes on the high seas that come to 

our attention are reported to the FBI through our Naval Criminal 

Investigative Service, through that law enforcement connection. 

Mr. SOUDER. Is it the same for the Coast Guard? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would add that the President’s National Maritime Security Strategy here and MOTR in the 

future advises all of us to report to each other incidents and 

threats that occur, and there will be greater coordination, therefore, leading to better consistency amongst all of the reporting 

sources. 

Mr. SOUDER. Admiral Justice, you made reference to how we approach narcotics, which my subcommittee particularly focuses on, 

114

and it is a pattern of how you are looking at some of the international terrorism and piracy questions, also some of the potential 

biological terrorism or nuclear terrorism. Could you describe a little 

bit in that type of relationship how you would interrelate with the 

Navy and the Defense Department and where kind of the territorial waters of the United States, how the Coast Guard and the 

military—Admiral McPherson, if you could, too—interrelate as you 

move into international waters? And does it depend on the type of 

threat? Is it whether the threat is headed to our shores, whether 

it is a threat to the military, whether it is the number of citizens 

on board? What are some of the types of criteria? Admiral Crowley? 

Or whoever best can take that question. 

Admiral CROWLEY. I will jump in first, Mr. Chairman, and I will 

say that there is a predisposition in the President’s strategy to act 

and as a first priority to protect American lives; and that the onscene responder, whether it be the military unit, the Coast Guard 

unit, the FBI unit, the agencies that you see here today are the 

leaders of the plan are to respond, with the predisposition to take 

control and take a leadership position, to be transitioned to a more 

appropriate organization as the facts and information is developed. 

And so I would answer the question to say that the first on scene 

is predisposed to act and take control and protect lives, and then 

we begin to sort out whether we need additional investigation, additional on-scene law enforcement capacity, or there is a defensive 

measure that needs to be taken. 

Mr. SOUDER. If a fight broke out on a cruise ship and violence 

started to occur, at what point would that principle apply to that? 

American citizens, let’s say a significant number of American citizens, are on board. You have been notified that it is not exactly a 

terrorist attack, it is not piracy, but potential loss of life or loss of 

life has started. At what point do you have the ability to board, and 

who would do it? And would it be the closest? I mean, would the 

Navy go on board in that situation? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, certainly the United States is 

authorized to respond to masters of cruise ships seeking assistance 

for any life-threatening incident at sea with respect to—and I 

would defer to colleagues here—another agency’s capabilities and 

authorities, but certainly it might depend on the outcome of a 

boarding as to who the agency is that conducts it. But certainly to 

take action to provide assistance to either U.S.-flagged or foreignflagged vessels is a relatively easy bar to overcome. 

Mr. SOUDER. You would need to be asked, however, by the vessel, 

not by an individual on board who happened to reach you? 

Admiral CROWLEY. A U.S. vessel would be handled differently 

than a foreign-flagged vessel, generally speaking that a foreignflagged vessel would be at the behest of the master or the flag 

state, the recognized government. 

Mr. SOUDER. Admiral McPherson, do you have any additional 

comments? 

Admiral MCPHERSON. I think that is absolutely accurate. Oftentimes it would be pragmatically who is closest to respond to the call 

for assistance. And if it were a Navy vessel on the high seas, we 

would respond and we would secure the scene. We would protect 

115

lives and property, and then we would ask for assistance from the 

Coast Guard or the FBI in consonance with the facts. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Swecker, I want to ask you a couple of questions, and I am sure we will rhyme with some coming, particularly 

on the cruise ship incidents. You get called as soon as an incident 

happens on the ship if they suspect foul play, or does it happen 

when they are in port? 

Mr. SWECKER. If it is a vessel in U.S. waters, usually we will get 

a phone call. It may be from the Coast Guard. As was pointed out, 

whoever is in a position to respond the quickest and get there. And 

then from there, much like a cop on the street or an incident that 

takes place on land, it is whoever can get there first and assess and 

triage the situation. We could get a call from the ship. We could 

get a call from the Coast Guard. We could get a call——

Mr. SOUDER. If there is a suspected killing on board, are you to 

be notified as soon as that happened or when they get into port? 

Mr. SWECKER. Just based on the general requirement to report 

any crime, particularly if it is, as I said, in U.S. waters or fits into 

our jurisdictional scheme. 

Mr. SOUDER. Let’s assume it is not. 

Mr. SWECKER. Yes, they should report it. There is no law that 

requires that they report other than the general laws of the United 

States. 

Mr. SOUDER. What about securing evidence? Is evidence supposed to be secured if there is doubt? Under U.S. law, even if they 

are in international waters but it is a U.S. citizen, do they have 

to secure the area of evidence? When they come into port and you 

look at the area of evidence, do they—obviously an investigation 

takes time, yet they have to get the ship out again. There have 

been allegations here that a potential crime scene was cleaned up 

and maybe even used by others. Are there laws that govern evidence? I mean, they are compared to floating cities, but at the 

same time I don’t know any city of 3,000 in the United States that 

could eliminate a crime scene? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not aware of any laws that require that they 

preserve the crime scene. There are practical considerations of 

when and how quickly we can get there to process the crime scene, 

whether we wait for them to get to the next port of call, or whether 

it is practical to get out to the vessel via the Coast Guard or the 

Navy or some other means. But I am not aware of a law that requires that they preserve evidence. We would hope common sense 

would prevail in that situation. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mrs. Maloney. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Very troubling to me are some allegations that people have been 

missing for a week, sometimes for a month, that it is never reported that the person is missing. One would think that common 

decency would be that you would call the next of kin, you would 

call the port, you would call the FBI, you would call the Army, the 

Navy, everybody, and report this. But I find that very troubling if 

my daughter or son was on a cruise ship and was missing and no 

one bothered to call to tell me. 

116

Can somebody report on that? Should we pass a law that for 

American citizens, that cruise ships at the very least inform the 

U.S. Government and the families? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not aware of issues regarding delays in reporting, but we did not research that in preparation for the testimony. But I will say that any—I mean, a requirement that there 

be due diligence in reporting those crimes would be very helpful. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Well, I am citing press accounts that I have read 

in the papers that people have—and then obviously you would secure the crime scene. There are allegations that the crime scenes 

have been cleaned up and buffed up and the clothes and belongings 

of the missing person are put in storage, and there is no effort to 

find anyone to claim this, no reporting anywhere. And certainly on 

American land, people report crimes. You are required to report 

crimes. 

And I would also like to ask the FBI about keeping information. 

I think a lot of times we do not know there is a problem until you 

have the data and the statistics to show that there is a problem 

and something needs to be done. And in reading press accounts, 

they state that there is no data collection or information kept on 

the number of people that are missing or, ‘‘commit suicide or are 

murdered on cruise ships.’’ Yet I know that many of my constituents tell me some of the finest trips they have ever had in their 

lives were on cruise ships, that it was a glorious experience and 

many people—I would say many of these cruise ships are populated 

by Americans on their various vacations. 

I know that the FBI keeps the CODIS index system on DNA. It 

is an international program. Every other day I am reading a story 

about a crime that has been solved now some 20 years later—

rapes, assaults, all kinds of things—because of this excellent program, I congratulate you, and also the NIBRS, the National Incident-Based Reporting System. And my question to you is: Should 

we start keeping statistics on this so that we can gauge the extent 

of it? And also for the consumer to know that on this particular 

cruise ship or cruise line, no one has been missing ever, yet on another cruise line people seem to disappear? Could you comment on 

keeping some type of data for the criminal people, the people fighting crimes in our country, to have access to and also for consumers 

to have some access for their own safety? I can call and get a data 

system on flights, which airlines have crashes. It is kept by precincts in New York. You can get data of the number of murders, 

rapes, assaults, robberies. By precinct we can get this information. 

Why shouldn’t we be able to get this by cruise ships? 

I am coming back to it. I am terribly concerned about reports 

that incidents have not even been reported to our Government or 

to the families. I find that incredibly, almost unbelievable that 

steps would not be taken immediately to try to inform people, to 

try to find out what happened, and if someone was hurt, to try to 

figure out how we can make sure people are not hurt in the future. 

So all those questions, if you could respond. 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, first of all, we can only collect data on what 

is reported to us, and it is very difficult to quantify what is not reported. We may be able to collect information on——

117

Mrs. MALONEY. Do you think we should require that this information be supplied to the FBI on American citizens? 

Mr. SWECKER. Given that they sort of step in the role that, for 

example, a police officer on the street would step into in that situation, it would not be absolutely an idea. 

Mrs. MALONEY. OK. Thank you. 

Would anyone else like to comment on any of the points? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Ma’am, I would just offer that for general 

safety and security issues, there is data captured certainly for people to look at, whether a different array of data would better meet 

needs of consumers, but with regard to safety records of both flag 

states, shipping groups, and shippers, there is information currently available. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Where is it available? 

Admiral CROWLEY. That is on the Coast Guard’s Web site for 

port state control exchange information. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Admiral CROWLEY. We can provide further information upon request. 

Mrs. MALONEY. Thank you. 

Mr. SOUDER. Admiral Crowley, on the legal standpoint, and 

maybe Mr. Swecker, too, in response to Congresswoman Maloney’s 

question, even though these are international vessels, couldn’t you 

get this by the licensing to go to a U.S. port? I believe in your testimony a number of you referred to the nexus that we would have 

because the port in the United States would not be the way we 

would handle it? 

Admiral CROWLEY. We certainly have different mechanisms to 

look toward acquiring information beyond the U.S. flag vessel. 

They would include mechanisms for vessels calling on U.S. ports as 

well as working through the International Maritime Organization 

to get standards with the community. And we certainly could explore those kinds of avenues. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Duncan. 

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

For 71⁄2 years prior to coming to Congress, I was a criminal court 

judge, and I tried the felony criminal cases, the most serious cases, 

the murders, rapes, armed robberies, burglaries, drug cases, etc. 

And I always tried to take into consideration the feelings of the 

families, and I think that they were pretty much satisfied with the 

sentences that I handed down because I have always believed that 

we should be very tough on serious crimes. And certainly if I had 

a family member who was killed or injured in some serious way on 

one of these cruise ships, I would certainly be concerned with it, 

and I certainly sympathize with those people. On the other hand, 

when I see the reports of 50 crimes and then Mr. Swecker’s testimony said 305 in 5 years, which is 61 crimes a year, 50 or 60 

crimes, we always want to try and do better. That should be the 

goal of everybody in regard to everything. But I don’t know if it is 

humanly possible to get much better than that 50 or 60 crimes 

when you have 10 million passengers a year and they are not on 

there just for an hour or two. They are on there for a week or 

sometimes even more. 

118

So I am certainly not trying to minimize this, but I am trying 

to look at it in a realistic way. And what I am wondering about, 

Mr. Swecker, one thing I am wondering about, there are hundreds 

of thousands of studies each year by academic people, government 

people, and everybody else. Do you know of any study or report or 

anything that, or do you have any information that would lead you 

to believe that not many of these—that many of these crimes are 

not being reported to the FBI? There is apparently an agreement 

among the cruise lines that requires that they be reported. Now, 

I realize that could be being observed in the breach rather than in 

the practice. Can you tell us any more specifically about that? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not aware of any studies, but I am also not 

aware of any systemic problems with them not reporting crimes 

aboard their ships. I am not even aware of the media reports that 

were just mentioned by the subcommittee member. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Admiral Justice or Admiral Crowley, I 

understand that the cruise lines have taken measures to screen all 

the bags and the passengers and so forth. Are there any ways that 

you feel that their security should be improved or any major or 

minor changes that you would suggest to improve or increase the 

security on these ships? 

Admiral JUSTICE. I would like to say, sir, that it has been my recent experience in the last 31⁄2 years down in Miami particularly 

where I have been stationed that there has been remarkable improvements and a coordinated effort to improve—you mentioned 

the screening of all bags. The Coast Guard and the U.S. Government has promulgated security standards, and the cruise ship industry has stepped up and met those standards in a remarkably 

aggressive and thorough manner. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you. 

Admiral McPherson, a final question for you. I noticed in your 

testimony that you have talked about the law in regard to piracy, 

but I did not—and maybe it is someplace else in some of the other 

witnesses’ testimonies, but how many acts of piracy are occurring 

each year on the high seas now? Do you know or have that information? 

Admiral MCPHERSON. I do not have those statistics. We can get 

back to you on that, if you would like, sir. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Swecker, could I clarify this question? One of 

the most notable cases here, the Smith family, is a dispute whether 

it is an accident or potential crime. Do accidents get reported, and 

do you ever investigate that? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am sorry. I did not——

Mr. SOUDER. You stated in response to the question in your testimony that—and it was suggested here that the cruise ships themselves report crimes. 

Mr. SWECKER. Correct. 

Mr. SOUDER. The question is: Do they report accidents? And 

what happens when a dispute occurs between an accident and a 

crime? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not aware that they report accidents nor any 

requirement to report accidents. But if there is any question at all, 

it would seem that they should report and let us take a look at it, 

119

at least open up a preliminary inquiry and see if a crime has been 

committed. In these circumstances, it was very appropriate for us 

to get an early look at it, and it should have been reported very 

quickly. 

Mr. SOUDER. And so I understand this, for the next panel, because in my questioning and Mr. Duncan’s questioning, it is still 

a little unclear to me, is this real-time reporting or is this when 

they come into port or a quarterly report that they report crimes 

to the FBI? 

Mr. SWECKER. I think it varies. I think when they believe a 

crime has been committed, I don’t think they wait until they go 

into the port. I think there are communication systems that allow 

them to report that via the air waves. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Well, first, there are a lot of issues that we 

can deal with here, but I think it is important to break it down to 

the real reason we are having this hearing. The scenario basically 

is that we have a cruise ship industry where we have over 10 million people, half of those people from North America, that are going 

for vacation. They are looking for a good time. They bring probably 

more jewelry than they might. They might bring tuxedos, whatever, because of the dining room, and they are looking to have a 

good time. 

Now, when you have a lot of people, you need systems and regulations, and I think the three major issues we need to look at now, 

first, the crimes on the cruise ships, on board, whether they be 

theft—and I assume there is a lot of theft. I am not sure whether 

it is being reported because it is an open season for people when 

they are out on board and whatever. And do we have a system 

there that we can identify where the theft is? Is there a ring there? 

Other issues, I have heard rape, whatever that is. 

The second thing, the pirates on the high seas, I think we know 

that. I don’t think that we have as many areas, and I think our 

intelligence shows that we stay away from certain areas, like Somalia. 

And the third is weather, and I referred to that in my opening 

statement about are we forced because of an industry to take 

chances when it is important to make a deadline than to look at 

the safety. 

Now, you know, there are some—we had a hearing here, if you 

will recall, the baseball hearing on steroids, and at first we all 

thought, well, are we really publicizing something. But the more 

we got into it, the more that we saw children involved, and then 

some of the issues were people telling the truth. Baseball had to 

take a look at it, and we have talked about how this industry is 

a good industry, but maybe there is more to what we need to look 

at than what is there. 

I know of, and have heard of, complaints when there is a theft 

in your room that you get a letter back, sorry, we are sorry that 

we cannot take care of your situation, whatever. And what I am 

interested in more than anything is, first thing, do we have a system in place—we know about the jurisdictional issues when the 

FBI or Coast Guard have jurisdiction and what do we do on the 

high seas and then what do we do. But do we work with the indusVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
120

try itself? Do we have a system that deals with the issue of safety? 

Do we have people who are certified security officers on ship? Do 

we have a system, maybe within that security program, investigators that will look at a theft that might be on board or any other 

issue such as that? 

I am not sure which one could answer that question, but how 

closely do we monitor and work with the industry? Which is a large 

industry. And why I mentioned baseball, because, you know, the 

industry itself needs to step up if there are issues. If they are not 

reporting crimes, how do we evaluate it? And I am sure if they are 

not reporting crimes and they do not know, they do not want the 

public to know about it. So let’s deal with that. 

And then there is a situation, I am sure Congressman Shays will 

deal with it, you know, which is extremely unfortunate, with 

George Smith and the way that occurred and the way his wife was 

treated and the fact that she was really told to go off-board and 

didn’t really feel she had the security that was needed, and then 

who went to the crime scene, and not even knowing what the 

issues are there. I am sure that those issues—the Royal Caribbean 

would not want that to be out in public because if it is, then it will 

hurt their credibility. So I am asking them and other industries to 

work with us to find out what is there. 

Now, can you answer the question about the standards, reporting 

of crimes? Do we have people on board that are trained security officers? What do we have there when they go beyond our jurisdiction? 

Mr. SWECKER. I can take a shot at it. There are protocols worked 

out with the cruise lines, but I am not aware of any formal training 

that we have provided. They may provide their own training. We 

have met with the cruise lines and established some basic protocols. 

Standards, I think you hit on a pretty good issue here as to setting some objective standards for them to meet when there is a 

suspected crime, reporting those crimes and getting at least some 

basic minimum standards set. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Does anybody else have a comment there? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Sir, I would like to add that since the implementation of the ISPS code and the Maritime Transportation Security Act here in the United States, the Coast Guard has worked 

with the industry to develop a model security officer training program. I cannot speak to the details and the standards that are inherent in that, but we continue to work with the industry to develop a model program that they can then execute. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. But we do not know whether those programs exist, we do not have a way of monitoring, like we do in our 

airline industry, because I can guarantee you, 99 percent of probably most—at least the people in the United States who go on 

these cruise ships, they are not thinking or are they aware of what 

happens when they get beyond the United States of America jurisdiction. And in a way, it is our obligation—and that is why we are 

having this hearing today—to maybe go to the industry and to 

maybe make sure that those standards do exist and that we do 

have the proper people on board. And there is another issue we 

haven’t talked about—and I do not want to get into it now because 

121

we could spend days on this—which is the actual issue of terrorism 

itself and the ability for, you know, members of al Qaeda or whatever to get on a cruise ship, to come into a port or whatever. I 

mean, you know, these are things that I think we better start buttoning it up, and I am asking you as a member of this committee 

to maybe review this with your different agencies, get with the industry before this thing gets out of hand, because we do not want 

to hurt the industry. There are a lot of people that enjoy this. But 

if the industry does not police itself and set the standards and we 

do not help them, then we are going to have to step in, and I don’t 

think that is what the industry is going to want. 

Do you have any opinions on whether you can start working with 

them more in setting those standards and who else should be involved? Anybody? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Sir, the Coast Guard certainly continues its 

partnership with the industry to work toward the safest possible 

industry that is available. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. What I am asking, I really have a problem 

with a lot of these hearings, that we have these hearings and there 

is no follow-through. So what I am asking is that the Coast Guard, 

the FBI, and the Navy here—now, I am not sure whether the Navy 

is involved as much, but you probably are on the high seas—that 

we maybe pull together, because you are probably the best experts 

we have to deal with this, and to look at the industry and bring 

the industry in and talk about these kind of standards. You know, 

the Coast Guard has said to me that it is one of the safest modes 

of travel, but if you happen to be somebody that is lost, like the 

Smith family, that is not a very safe mode, and we need, I think, 

to really start looking at standards that will not hurt the industry 

but allow it to continue on, but to make sure we protect our Americans. Any commitment to get back on that? 

Mr. SWECKER. Certainly we can get back to you on that. We have 

a perfect vehicle to do that with our maritime liaison officers, and 

they would be the points of contact to sit with the Coast Guard, 

sit with the Navy, and sit with the industry representatives, and 

work through some protocols and standards. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. You have 300—I think it is 300—major 

ships or, I guess—what do you call them—vessels—is it 300 companies that are out there that do the majority of the 10, the 12 million? I mean, would you work through the International Council of 

Cruise Lines? I mean, where do we go here? I am trying to get specific. Where do you think we go? 

Mr. SWECKER. Working with 300 different companies would be 

difficult. Working through the industry representatives through 

ICCL would probably be the best idea. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would suggest you find who the big players are, too, and try to address that. And then if you set standards, 

it can go from the largest players to the smallest. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you are going to ask for this to 

come back that we could have a report back on this. Thank you. 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, we will. 

Chairman Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. I want to thank all of you for being here, 

and I am wrestling with myself as to where to begin because we 

122

are citing statistics that I think are meaningless because I do not 

trust the statistics. Whatever they are, I do not trust them. I do 

not feel we have all the statistics. I think we have some of the statistics. So maybe you could start by telling me, do you have all the 

statistics or do you just get some of the information from some of 

the cruise line industries, some of the cruise ships? Could we just 

start right down the line? 

Mr. SWECKER. As far as crimes that have been reported, we work 

everything that has been reported to us as at least a PI. 

Mr. SHAYS. So, in other words, if they have not reported a crime, 

you do not have a statistic. 

Mr. SWECKER. We do not know what they have not reported to 

us. There is no way of knowing. 

Mr. SHAYS. So the bottom line is, of the statistics you are given, 

you can then share those statistics. But how can you come to any 

conclusion that they mean anything? 

Mr. SWECKER. You can’t. I mean, a lot of crimes on the street do 

not get reported. We just have no way of quantifying what is not 

reported to us. 

Mr. SHAYS. But isn’t there a difference, though, between what 

might happen on the street and what might happen on a cruise 

ship? Isn’t a cruise ship—basically they are the judge and the jury 

in a sense? They have their own police, their own fire, and it is 

all—and nodding the head doesn’t get recorded. 

Mr. SWECKER. I think you are right. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. If I could just go down the line, how comfortable 

are you with the statistics that are presented? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I certainly would not claim to 

have accurate statistics for all the crimes that this subcommittee 

is concerned about today. 

Mr. SHAYS. On cruise ships. 

Admiral CROWLEY. On cruise ships. There certainly are good, accurate—relatively accurate safety statistics in certain areas that 

have been developed over years. What you are looking at today I 

couldn’t stand on very long. 

With respect to what we could do, we certainly can continue to 

look at that and figure out what it is——

Mr. SHAYS. We will come back to that. We will come back to that. 

Admiral McPherson. 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Yes, sir, there is no reporting requirement 

to DOD by the cruise industry. In response to Representative Duncan’s statement, we can get back on the number of piracy incidents 

that we have become aware of, but there is no requirement for reporting those to——

Mr. SHAYS. I am going to put piracy aside for the time being, because I just have this feeling that we will probably have more accurate numbers on piracy than we would on whether or not someone 

is missing. 

Mr. Swecker, if someone is missing, is that a crime? 

Mr. SWECKER. Not necessarily. I would say in the context of a 

cruise ship, it is certainly something that should be reported. 

Mr. SHAYS. But is it reported? 

Mr. SWECKER. I do not know. 

Mr. SHAYS. I mean, you know it isn’t, don’t you? 

123

Mr. SWECKER. I am sorry? 

Mr. SHAYS. You know it isn’t reported. 

Mr. SWECKER. All I know is what is reported to us. If we were 

aware of an instance where they did not report it, we would probably independently——

Mr. SHAYS. But in your experience, are you aware that people 

have been missing on cruise ships and it was never even reported 

to the families that they were missing? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not personally aware of those situations. 

Nothing has been reported to me. 

Mr. SHAYS. So you have never heard of an instance where someone was missing that was not reported? 

Mr. SWECKER. That was not part of the preparation that I did 

for this testimony. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, one of the things that would be wonderful 

would be to have all of you read the statements of some of the family members. While you were giving your statements, which I really 

appreciate, I was just going through what some of the family members had said. And when you go through what the family members 

endured, you want to scream. At least I do. I mean, when you hear 

the statement, read the statement of Kendall Carver about 

Merrian Lynn Carver, she went on a cruise, the steward was concerned because she was not in her cabin by the second day and reported to his folks that he had to report to on the cruise ship. 

When the cruise ship docked, they took her possessions and sent 

them down to Miami and did not report anything. Did not report 

anything. The family is learning that their daughter is missing 

from her daughter. And then when they try to find out, well, where 

is she, they find that she went on a cruise. And then they continue 

to try to get more information. They have to hire an investigator 

to check this out. The investigator wants to talk to people on the 

cruise ship, finds that at first they were willing to talk, and then 

they were not willing to talk. Finally, he learns that the cruise ship 

was very concerned—at least people on the cruise ship after the 

second day. The family was never notified. They never notified her 

parents. They never notified her children. They never notified her 

former husband. They did not notify anybody. They did not even 

record that she was missing. 

So when I read that, and this is a reputable cruise line. When 

I read that, everything about statistics mean nothing to me. They 

are totally and completely meaningless to me. 

Let me just understand from each of you, what is the requirement of the cruise line industry to provide you accurate statistics? 

What is the requirement? 

Mr. SWECKER. There are not any that I am aware of. 

Mr. SHAYS. Admiral. 

Admiral JUSTICE. None, sir. 

Admiral MCPHERSON. I am not aware of any requirements to report to DOD. 

Mr. SHAYS. So there is no requirement that they provide you statistics whatsoever. So can we agree that the statistics are really 

meaningless, at least at this point? I mean, would you agree, Mr. 

Swecker, that the statistics are meaningless if, in fact, you cannot 

be assured you have all the statistics? 

124

Mr. SWECKER. I would say they are less meaningful. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, tell me how they are meaningful. 

Mr. SWECKER. We know what is reported——

Mr. SHAYS. I do not know what ‘‘less meaningful’’ means. 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, we have no way of knowing what is or is not 

reported to us, so there is no way of defining the universe of what 

is not reported. 

Mr. SHAYS. So can you tell me that the statistics are meaningful, 

then? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not going to defend the statistics. I cannot. 

Mr. SHAYS. Are the statistics meaningful? 

Mr. SWECKER. I cannot defend them as meaningful——

Mr. SHAYS. I do not know what ‘‘defend them’’ or not means. I 

need you to tell me—in other words, you have already testified that 

the industry does not have to report anything to you. No requirement, no legal requirement. The Admirals have said the same 

thing. They do not have to report it to the Coast Guard. They do 

not have to report it to the Navy. So there is no requirement that 

they be reported. And yet I have been listening to all these statistics. So should I have any comfort in those statistics, Mr. Swecker? 

Mr. SWECKER. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. Admiral. 

Admiral JUSTICE. No, sir. 

Admiral CROWLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Admiral. 

Admiral MCPHERSON. It doesn’t seem so to me. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So what we have to do on this subcommittee is 

find a way to get accurate statistics. Why don’t you each suggest 

to me how we would get accurate statistics, just to start? 

Mr. SWECKER. A requirement that they—and define what crimes 

should be reported. For example, we have no statistics on theft, so 

we know that no theft has ever been reported, at least to the FBI. 

So we know all the crimes are not being reported. So I think a requirement that you report crimes either to the FBI or the Coast 

Guard, or both, would be a start. 

Mr. SHAYS. Admirals. Admiral Crowley. 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, it is clear that we have to 

come to some agreement as to what the nature of reporting requirements should be, work with both the Congress and the industry and develop some standards that are helpful. 

Mr. SHAYS. See, we are not even—and I appreciate your responding to these questions, but we are not even into this issue yet of 

what, you know, regulations we are going to put or not put on the 

industry. We are just trying to understand what the problem is to 

know whether laws are required, regulations, just Government action with no need of regulation, or whether we are just going to say 

to the industry you have to do a better job and you have to do the 

following. 

What legal rights do Americans have, Mr. Swecker, when they 

are on board a cruise ship? 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, they are afforded all the legal rights of any 

citizen in the United States. 

Mr. SHAYS. If they are on a cruise ship that is foreign-flagged, 

they still have all the rights of a citizen? 

125

Mr. SWECKER. By virtue of Title 18 in our extraterritorial jurisdictional statutes, yes. I mean, as far as our ability to investigate 

crimes against U.S. citizens—I don’t know if they enjoy, I guess, all 

the rights of a U.S. citizen if they are on a foreign-flagged vessel, 

but they are going to receive the protection and the investigation 

by U.S. law enforcement. 

Mr. SHAYS. So if they get on a cruise ship in Italy or Greece, they 

can feel comfortable they have all the rights of a citizen, all the 

legal protections of a citizen of the United States? 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, we go through all these different jurisdictional scenarios. What they can expect is that U.S. law enforcement 

will respond if we have a jurisdictional basis to do so. 

Mr. SHAYS. The ‘‘if’’ is the question. What does that ‘‘if’’ mean? 

Mr. SWECKER. We can only work what we have jurisdiction over. 

I mean, there are some scenarios where it is not clear, for example, 

if it is within somebody else’s territorial waters or their seas. 

Mr. SHAYS. So if a crime is allegedly committed in the territorial 

waters of another country, then you do or do not have jurisdiction? 

Mr. SWECKER. Then that is subject to international treaty, and 

that starts to get out of my area of expertise. But if there is any 

arguable basis for U.S. jurisdiction, we will respond and we will 

work through the host country. 

Mr. SHAYS. I have real confidence that the FBI, if they can find 

a way, will exercise their ability to involve themselves. I just want 

to know if you do it by just the acquiescence of the country in 

which the crime may have been committed or whether you can actually demand it by right. Maybe the Admirals can enlighten me. 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, you raise the question of the 

further we get from a U.S.-flagged vessel calling upon a U.S. port 

to a foreign-flagged vessel calling upon a foreign port——

Mr. SHAYS. OK, let’s take——

Admiral CROWLEY [continuing]. Never getting to the United 

States at all, and there is certainly going to be a difference in the 

ability of the United States to provide protections for the cruise 

line rider that is more distant to the United States. That doesn’t 

mean they don’t have rights as citizens and together we won’t work 

toward resolving issues. But there are simply going to be differences in our ability to deal with the problem. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let me just isolate it first. Most cruise ships are not 

U.S. based, or are? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Most of them are not. 

Mr. SHAYS. U.S.-flagged, they are not. 

Admiral CROWLEY. Most of them are not U.S.-flagged. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Let’s just take those that are U.S.-flagged. If a 

crime is committed in territorial waters of another country, given 

that it is a U.S.-flagged vessel, we have pretty certain rights? 

Admiral CROWLEY. We would have a good ability to exercise jurisdiction not only over the vessel, investigative with colleagues 

from the FBI, but response from the Coast Guard, and to establish 

requirements upon the shipper, the cruise line itself. 

Mr. SHAYS. If it was not a U.S.-flagged vessel, then? 

Admiral CROWLEY. If it was not a U.S.-flagged vessel, then while 

we could protect U.S. citizens’ rights and investigative means as 

has been discussed, our ability to influence the standards on the 

126

cruise line are dependent upon two things: our work with the industry, which is rather robust and continuous, and our work within 

the International Maritime Organization, as we have done with respect to security code at large, and to try to extend the standards 

that the United States believes important as far as we can through 

world shipping. In an incredibly responsive way, IMO has continued to work with U.S. delegations and passed in very quick time 

the security facility and vessel code that we all know about following September 11th. 

I do not want to paint a picture that we are helpless or that the 

picture is so bleak, but I think it is important to recognize that it 

is different when we are dealing with a foreign-flagged vessel, and 

most different with a foreign-flagged vessel that has relatively no 

connection to the United States. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, whether you want it to be bleak or not is not 

really the issue. The issue is you are just trying to be truthful 

about what rights we have and what rights we do not have and 

what rights citizens have and do not have. 

I notice Mr. Cummings is here. I would like to have a series of 

more questions, but I would be happy to yield back and then just 

come back. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Admiral Crowley, tell me something. You know, we have had all 

kinds of hearings in this subcommittee about all the things that 

the Coast Guard has to do with regard to homeland security and 

drug interdiction and, you know, doing the things that you do, 

guarding the coast and what have you. But I am just wondering, 

you know, where does this whole subject fall as far as priorities are 

concerned? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Well, sir, I think everywhere from the National Strategy down to the code that, and I speak loosely, but the 

code that every commanding officer adheres to, that the safety of 

life at sea is preeminent. So the safety and security of lives is always a preeminent concern. 

The Coast Guard has long worked with the maritime industry 

both on the commercial side and on the private vessel side, cruise 

lines as well as commercial carriers, to ensure the safest transportation system that we can to leverage U.S. standards as far into 

the world’s shipping as we can. There is an end to what that might 

be, and that is what your question clearly goes to. And that is a 

different question, and there is no easy answer, no good answer for 

the victims of the crimes that call our attention today. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you believe that the cruise industry should 

bear more of the financial responsibility for security and safety on 

these cruise ships? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Sir, I believe that the cruise industry bears 

the significant share of the responsibility today. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I see you shaking your head, Admiral Justice. 

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, sir, I would like to chime in here. As we 

work not only in the regulatory and the preparation for safety and 

all the things that we do with the cruise ship industry before they 

sail, once the industry does sail, once the ships are out at sea, the 

Coast Guard is also there. We respond, particularly in the CaribVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
127

bean, particularly throughout the Bahamas, to medical evacuation 

situations on cruise ships all the time, all year long, and we are 

ready to do that as well as if there is some sort of a man overboard 

situation, whatever it might be, which unfortunately happened 

again just a couple days ago, we are out there immediately upon 

notification, and we are flying and we are searching and we are responding in partnership with the cruise ship to try to remedy the 

situation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. You know, I was sitting here and listening to 

this thing about you all talk about reporting and statistics, and I 

am just wondering—you deal with this kind of thing every day, Mr. 

Swecker. What would be the ideal situation if you were sitting in 

our seats and there was something that, you know, you could do 

to make things better that are practical things so that when people 

get on a ship they could feel—you are never going to be completely 

secure, I don’t care where you are, but have maximum—you know, 

as maximum as practical security as possible. What would you 

want to do? What would you do? Or anybody else. 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, I would say that you would hope that the 

industry and push the industry to police itself and establish its 

own standards. We have talked about reporting. I think that is 

very critical to at least know that if a crime occurs that it is going 

to be duly reported and quickly reported. But as far as the standard, security standards, protocols and that sort of thing, you would 

hope and I would suggest pushing the industry to set their own 

standards. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And I am just curious, how would you suggest 

that we do that? If I am going to report something that—and it is 

so sad. It is so sad that so much gets down to dollars and cents 

these days, not necessarily safety. And if I have an industry where 

I am worried about the dollars and cents, hoping and wishing is 

not probably going to do it. I was just wondering, did you have anything that—I mean, you talk about trying to force them or push 

them to do it. Us saying please do this does not work. We could 

barely get trains. I sit on the Transportation Committee. Just to 

get trains to put certain safety glass in trains so that if there is 

an accident people can get out is a major, major problem. I mean, 

it is like going up against that wall there. And I was just wondering, how would you—what kind of incentive would you throw 

out there? 

I hate to put you in this position as a legislator, but you are the 

FBI, so I figure that you might be able to help us. 

Mr. SWECKER. It is very difficult to step into the policymaking 

role that you are asking, but, you know, as we talked about, I am 

not aware of systemic problem because we do not know what we 

do not know. And I think before you step in and start regulating, 

you need to have a good understanding of what the standards are 

and what is not being done. Is it a systemic problem or is it an isolated set of circumstances in a few instances? I do not know that. 

So it is very difficult to step up and say, hey, we need to do this 

or this. I think at bare minimum, I think it is a good start to simply require that these crimes be reported. But if you are asking me 

for a standard security standard, I cannot give you that. 

128

Mr. CUMMINGS. I got you. That is not what I was asking, but it 

is OK. 

What sanctions exist, if any, if a cruise line is determined to be 

negligent or responsible for a serious crime against one of its passengers? 

Mr. SWECKER. What sanction? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes. 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, there is a whole host of laws, both common 

law, depending on the district where you would find jurisdiction, 

and also some maritime laws that would govern that. They are also 

subject to the same laws of any citizen, misprision of a felony, not 

reporting a felony. There are laws on the books that can be applied 

if there is such gross negligence that it reaches into the criminal 

realm. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, with regard to the George Smith case, the 

Turkish Government initially handled it, and then the case was 

turned over to the FBI after, I think, 6 weeks or 7 weeks. Is that 

true? 

Mr. SWECKER. I am not sure of the exact time period. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Well, you know it——

Mr. SWECKER. It was not right away. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. It was not right away. When were you all made 

aware of that? Can you tell me that? 

Mr. SWECKER. No, I do not have that information, but I can get 

back to you on it. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And——

Mr. SWECKER. I have also been asked by the U.S. Attorney not 

to discuss the facts of the case. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I understand. I am not trying to get that deep 

into it. I am just trying to figure out whether I found out about it 

before you did on CNN. And I am not trying to be smart. I mean, 

I heard about it from CNN, and I was just wondering—and what 

I am trying to get to is what kind of cooperation do we get from 

these governments? Because that sounds like something that is 

very important. 

Mr. SWECKER. Well, I was going to say in that case it was very 

difficult to determine exactly when and where—what territorial—

if any particular territorial waters were implicated and exactly 

where this happened. And that is one of the threshold questions in 

terms of who has jurisdiction. So there are some complexities there 

that get into the facts of the case. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And so then depending on where the ship was, 

you could have—I mean, it could be a nightmare trying to figure 

out who has jurisdiction. Am I right? 

Mr. SWECKER. I would defer to legal counsel on that one. He is 

going to have a better understanding of that. 

Admiral CROWLEY. Sir, it could be difficult, but I think you touch 

upon an important point that we continue to make improvements 

on all the time, and that is working with the shipping authorities 

of different flag governments to try to improve our ability once we 

know about a case—you have pointed out a vulnerability to the 

process. But once we know about the case, to work with the shipping authorities of the different countries and acquire jurisdiction 

129

to facilitate, whether it be Legats or Coast Guard boarding teams, 

to preserve scenes and to continue the effort. 

In several of the cases that we have noted, we have been able 

to do that, but we have to know about the case before you can 

make the step to contact the shipping authority. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I would just ask this: Mr. Swecker said that it 

is kind of difficult, and I am not try to put words in your mouth. 

Correct me if I am wrong—to figure out whether we have a problem and the extent of the problem if we do not have the information. Am I right, Mr. Swecker? Is that what you basically said? 

Mr. SWECKER. Yes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Do you all consider this a problem? Do you think 

that is a problem? You know, we have had witnesses come before 

us, and we thought something was a problem and they did not. 

Mr. SWECKER. It has not been brought to our attention as a systemic problem. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So you don’t——

Mr. SWECKER. You know, I will not say we have studied it extensively either. I mean, this is one of many things that we do, and 

it has not been brought, at least at my level, as a systemic problem 

with the cruise industry. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Anybody else? 

[No response.] 

Mr. SHAYS. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Of course. 

Mr. SHAYS. Since this was the line of question that I was asking, 

I need you to elaborate on your answer, because it sounds like you 

acknowledged the statistics are meaningless because they are not 

complete and they are voluntary, and you all four said they were 

meaningless. And yet you are saying you did not think of it as a 

problem. 

So I need you to kind of sort that out for me, just so we have 

a record that we can act on. 

Mr. SWECKER. There just is not enough information to draw a 

conclusion at this point. I mean, you are asking me to define what 

we do not know. 

Mr. SHAYS. Draw a conclusion about what? 

Mr. SWECKER. You were addressing reporting, and I just—we 

don’t know what we don’t know. We don’t know what hasn’t been 

reported to us. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So you don’t know whether you can make the 

affirmative or the negative. But I will get into this again because 

I want it clearly understood. I thought you all said that these statistics were meaningless because they weren’t necessarily complete. 

And if you have a different answer to add, then I need to make 

sure I know. 

Now, what I also heard you saying to Mr. Cummings is that you 

had not thought about it in the past, and what that says to me is 

you have lots of issues on the table, and you have just accepted 

these statistics and acted on them as being valid, which says something else. 

I thank the gentleman, but I really need to nail this down before 

we adjourn this panel. 

130

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, just as my last question, this is a followup 

on what Mr. Shays was saying. You know, the thing that I guess 

concerns me is that—one of the things that makes me so proud to 

be an American is that we take care of our people. And, I mean, 

you all do a great job. You have men and women out there that 

literally put their lives on the line. I have seen it, I have heard 

them. And I guess, you know, I look at some of the cases that happen, and it happens to one American who is missing or who has 

a major problem, I think a lot of the reason why other countries 

admire us is because we will go, we will do whatever is necessary 

to try to get to that one person, no matter where they are. I just 

want to make sure that we do everything that we can to prevent 

having to have to go after those persons as best we can. We are 

always going to have some type of problems, and we just need to 

figure out, again, what—I think there is a problem, figure out how 

to get the information we need and then figure out how to use taxpayers’ dollars most effectively and efficiently to continue to do 

what America is good at, and that is coming to the rescue of our 

people. 

You know, so perhaps this will in further questioning, you know, 

flesh it out a little bit, but I think that is the goal here. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings follows:]

131


27923.006
132


27923.007
133


27923.008
134


27923.009
135

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I have some additional questions. 

Would each of you report back to the subcommittee what type of 

statistics you have in your agency, how many times the Coast 

Guard has been involved not only on cruise ships but on piracy, if 

it is related to theft, rape, or murder, same thing in the Department of Defense, same thing in the FBI, so at least we have what 

universe of statistics we are dealing with. 

Second, just as a general statement that Mr. Cummings did, let 

me ask this question. It is a pretty easy one, Admiral Justice, but 

I want to give you the opportunity to say this on the record. Since 

we expect you to pick up every sailboat that tips over, we expect 

you to interdict all the drugs in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean and everywhere else in the world, we expect you to guard 

every little thing that may be in every container coming in on 

every ship in the United States, and now we expect you to make 

sure everybody is safe on all the international seas, do you have 

enough money? 

Admiral JUSTICE. Sir, as you know, we do the best we can with 

what we have, and, Mr. Cummings, you know, you have our continued commitment to keep doing that. 

Mr. SOUDER. Bottom line, and I will say this, we in Congress 

need to accelerate everything from Deepwater to others because we 

have put you in so many missions, and now the general public—

I mean, we have been having these border meetings for about 2 

months and trying to figure out how to deal with the U.S. border. 

And because you did a great job, and Admiral Allen down in 

Katrina, they wanted to put you in charge of the Southwest border. 

I know all the coasties really want to do landlocked Southwest border things, but we cannot continue to say the Coast Guard is going 

to do all this without giving the Coast Guard resources. And I 

wanted to make sure I put that into the record. 

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Cummings made a comment and the response 

was, Mr. Swecker, ‘‘once we heard about the problem.’’ You know, 

‘‘once we heard about the problem’’ just does not cut it, because we 

have established here that there is no timely reporting. In other 

words, you cannot respond to a problem if you have not heard 

about it. You do not just look at TV and respond. But you have 

identified a real critical thing here because if it takes you 7 months 

to hear about it, what is a crime scene going to look like? I mean, 

this is like every case is a cold case. 

You also said in your testimony that there were not penalties 

other than the normal penalties. Let me ask a question: If there 

is a crime scene in a town in Indiana, or anywhere in the country—

I happen to be from Indiana. But a Wal-Mart security guard alters 

the crime scene, what happens if private security changes a crime 

scene that could impact whether or not a case can be prosecuted? 

And what if it was deliberately altered, not necessarily to cover up 

the crime but they knew it was a crime scene, they knew it was 

a potential civil liberties violation of some individual, and they altered the crime scene? 

Mr. SWECKER. A deliberate alteration of a crime scene would be 

a crime. If it was not just negligence but done with requisite intent——

136

Mr. SOUDER. What about a potential——

Mr. SWECKER [continuing]. It would be——

Mr. SOUDER. What about of a potential crime? In other words, 

there is a store, let’s say, at the mall, somebody alleges they were 

raped in the parking lot, but we are not sure whether it was a rape 

or not, but somebody altered the crime scene from a private security force. Would they have penalties? 

Mr. SWECKER. Then you get into nuances of intent. I hate to 

delve too deeply into that, but the answer is it is a potential crime, 

yes. 

Mr. SOUDER. Is it on a cruise ship? 

Mr. SWECKER. If there is—yes. If there is a deliberate intent to 

tamper with a crime scene, yes. Then you get into legal issues——

Mr. SOUDER. The reason I am trying to get into it, because deliberate intent here is really interesting, because at a mall, it may be 

that you do not want a car with a bunch of yellow tape over it saying, you know, rape victim there; you do not want to have a store 

sealed off because something happened in their store, because they 

would shut down during Christmas season. On a ship, the problem 

here is they want to use the berths and they do not want to sit in 

harbor waiting for the crime scene. 

So, if there is blood on the deck, that is not going to be real comfortable for the next people going, hey, how come there is blood all 

over this lifeboat and on the deck? So it is certainly deliberate. The 

question is, are you saying malicious? 

Mr. SWECKER. We would investigate it as a crime. I don’t know 

whether it would be convicted as a crime. We would have to hold 

up those elements of proof, whatever statute we are working with. 

Mr. SOUDER. OK. I appreciate that. That clarifies that for me. 

In this question of are the statistics valid, and you kind of suggested that—first off, you said overtly that we cannot have any 

confidence in the statistics because we only know what we know. 

At the same time you suggested it had not reached some kind of 

threshold level that you were real concerned about it. 

Let me ask another question. If I have a family member who is 

missing and I report that, that they are missing from a cruise ship, 

they went on a cruise and they are missing, does that get counted 

in the cruise ship data, or how does that get recorded? And does 

it depend who I report it to? If I report it to the local police, would 

the local police not necessarily even get it to the FBI unless it 

reaches a threshold? Could different cases be lodged in different 

city departments, State police, FBI? And do you mark it if it is a 

cruise ship? 

Mr. SWECKER. It is possible. I think most local agencies would 

quickly refer it over to the FBI, you know, if it were reported directly to them. 

All I can tell you is whatever has been reported to us, we have 

opened up as an investigation. 

Mr. SOUDER. But you do not believe that a case—you do not 

know or—what I am trying to sort out is, does the FBI get cases 

outside of the cruise ship self-reporting that could be cruise shiprelated? And how does that mesh? Or don’t you have that statistic? 

137

Mr. SWECKER. I don’t know if we have had indirect reporting 

from other agencies that the cruise line did not report, but I certainly can get back to you on that. 

Mr. SOUDER. That would be helpful because that would be—one 

of the questions is you presume if somebody was missing from a 

cruise ship that there would be another method they would report 

if the cruise ship didn’t report it, and that would be an interesting 

gap to see as well. 

Mr. Shays. 

Mr. SHAYS [presiding]. Thank you. 

We will get on to the next panel in just a second. We are learning how to walk here on this case. We are looking at the cruise 

ship industry, and we may have a serious problem. We may not 

have the kind of problem that I think we have. But what I am getting from this first panel and from you, Mr. Swecker, is that given 

the statistics, you do not think there is anything too out of the ordinary. This is how we started out. You know, we have cities with 

crime that is worse and so on. 

In the course of your responding to questions—and you made it 

a point that you don’t always have a crime told to you in an urban 

area, for instance. But you did, in the course of responding to some 

questions, acknowledge that all the statistics you get are voluntary 

and that you have no certainty whatsoever that you have all the 

statistics, all the facts. So in response to that, asking the question, 

can you have any comfort level that these statistics mean anything? I thought your answer was, no, I can’t have a comfort level 

that these statistics mean anything. I may have asked the question 

differently. If you want to—that is where I am leaving—that is 

what I concluded from your response to me. If you want to give a 

different response, then—do you have confidence that these statistics are accurate and that you can draw any conclusions given that 

you have no comfort that you have all the facts and statistics? 

Mr. SWECKER. If you are asking if I have a personal comfort 

level——

Mr. SHAYS. Not a personal—no, you are not here for personal 

reasons. You are an FBI representative. 

Mr. SWECKER. And I am also trained to operate on facts, and I 

don’t have factual information to draw conclusions right now. 

Mr. SHAYS. No, no, that is not—do you—you don’t have any factual information to draw a conclusion that the statistics are accurate, correct? 

Mr. SWECKER. Correct. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. 

Mr. SWECKER. Nor inaccurate. 

Mr. SHAYS. Fine. Therefore, when you start out by saying the 

statistics are telling you that you don’t have a problem, do you 

want to withdraw that? Because you basically cannot make that 

conclusion, correct? 

Mr. SWECKER. All I said was I am not aware of a systemic problem with non-reporting. And I am not aware of a systemic problem 

with non-reporting. But, again, you know, you are asking me to 

draw a conclusion, and there is not enough information to draw 

that conclusion. 

138

Mr. SHAYS. Well, we are going to just start over again, and I do 

not have a time limit here, and we can go on for half an hour, we 

can go on for 2 minutes. And I know you want to be cooperative, 

and I do not want to beat a dead horse here. The bottom line is: 

Are these statistics reported to you voluntarily? 

Mr. SWECKER. Yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Do you believe that the statistics from the industry represent every crime that has been committed? Do you believe 

that you get all the statistics from all the cruise lines? 

Mr. SWECKER. I do not have that information. I do not have 

enough information to draw that belief one way or the other. But 

I——

Mr. SHAYS. So the answer is——

Mr. SWECKER. All I know is what has been reported to us. If I 

had examples of non-reporting——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, let’s pursue it differently——

Mr. SWECKER [continuing]. I could draw a conclusion. 

Mr. SHAYS. Is the cruise industry a disinterested party here? 

Mr. SWECKER. No. 

Mr. SHAYS. Does the cruise industry have any penalty if they do 

not provide you accurate statistics? 

Mr. SWECKER. None that I am aware of. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. They cannot go to jail. It is all voluntary. And 

so basically you are depending on the good will of the cruise industry to provide you accurate information. Is that correct? 

Mr. SWECKER. That is correct. 

Mr. SHAYS. Is it possible that some of the information they would 

provide you would embarrass them? 

Mr. SWECKER. It is possible. 

Mr. SHAYS. Is it possible that some of the information they could 

provide you might hurt their business? 

Mr. SWECKER. It is possible. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So, so far, we are in agreement. 

Can you state with any comfort level that given the statistics 

that you are provided, you can say that we do not have a problem 

in the cruise industry? 

Mr. SWECKER. No, I cannot. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. We will leave it at that. We will leave it at that. 

I think that is fair. So you are not coming here saying we have a 

problem or we do not have a problem. 

Mr. SWECKER. Correct. If I had more information for you, I would 

be perfectly willing to draw a conclusion on that. But I——

Mr. SHAYS. OK. Rear Admiral Justice, I am going to ask you the 

same basic questions, and without me asking it, tell me what the 

statistics tell you and tell me how dependable you believe the statistics are. By the way, I thought this was like the first question 

I would ask in the course of 20 others, and that is why I am not 

eager to keep spending time on this. But what comfort level do you 

have with the statistics that would suggest that we do not have a 

problem with the cruise industry? Can you draw a conclusion one 

way or the other? 

Admiral JUSTICE. I cannot. 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I could have your indulgence and maybe answer the question a little differently——

139

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. 

Admiral CROWLEY [continuing]. And see if it is responsive to you. 

Over time, the Coast Guard has found a fair degree of self-reporting from the cruise industry on safety matters such as fire prevention from which additional fire protection regulations were implemented within the industry, first within U.S. carriers and then, 

through IMO, overseas. 

On the other hand, through largely a wide body of anecdotal information, investigations and efforts in the area of environmental 

pollution were undertaken by the Coast Guard in a different fashion. 

So we have experience, is what I would offer you, in dealing with 

both the industry dealing on its own behalf as safety as an interest 

of theirs and self-reporting and making adjustments to regulations, 

as well as understanding, where a wide body of anecdotal information does exist, that law enforcement and investigative efforts have 

to be undertaken and pursued without the request of the industry. 

And I think there is a track record, for example, in the environmental enforcement area of holding individuals as well as corporate 

entities criminally liable where it is applicable. 

So that is approaching your question a little differently. I don’t 

know if that is helpful to you or not. 

Mr. SHAYS. We will let it stand. Thank you, Admiral. 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense 

has no regulatory or law enforcement relationship with the cruise 

industry, so I am out of my lane in response to that. But as a taxpayer, I would agree with you. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, sir. 

I thought that if a crime had been committed but stating that 

someone is simply missing, it clearly reduces the level of oversight 

on the industry. Would you agree, Mr. Swecker? I mean, there is 

a big difference between someone being missing and a crime being 

committed. 

Mr. SWECKER. There is a difference, yes. People go missing every 

day within the United States, and it does not necessarily translate 

into a crime. But it is in a different context on a cruise ship because there is nowhere to go, so, you know, to me a crime is implicated or some other event is implicated, a serious accident. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, we have three choices basically, it seems to me: 

a murder was committed, people were fooling around and an accident took place, someone was drunk and did something unwise and 

fell overboard, or they committed suicide. I have four choices. Are 

there others that I should add to that? 

Mr. SWECKER. No. I think you have covered it. 

Mr. SHAYS. But what is stunning for me is in speaking to Mr. 

Carver and learning about Merrian Lynn Carver, in that instance 

the industry did not even want to say she was missing. That is 

what is so astonishing. I mean, missing is one thing. They are not 

saying she was killed. And so I am just struck by a feeling of uneasiness about the industry. That is, Mr. Swecker, why you in your 

professional ability are not going to make a conclusion one way or 

the other, I have suspicions. My suspicions are that if they would 

do that to Merrian Lynn Carver and have her young daughter calling her grandparents and saying, ‘‘Mommy is not home, I cannot 

140

find her,’’ and then in the course of having to get information, 

spend $75,000 to get this information, to learn eventually, after 

being able to speak to the steward, who they did not want them 

to speak with, that he was concerned from day one. And from day 

one, they just took her stuff and got rid of it, case closed. So they 

have a little bit of a problem with me. 

I am just sharing with you as to why we are intrigued and interested and determined to pursue this. When you read the statement 

from Jennifer Hagel Smith, you want to scream, you want to cry, 

you want to say, ‘‘I don’t believe it.’’ She was basically told that her 

husband was presumed to have gone overboard in a public place 

in front of other people who were laughing and smiling and having 

a great time on a cruise ship. She states there was no compassion, 

sympathy, or sensitivity shown by the cruise line. She asked if she 

could contact George’s parents immediately. She says, ‘‘The cruise 

line told me not to call anyone; however, I couldn’t bear the weight 

of this nightmare alone.’’ Hello. 

‘‘Finally, the cruise line permitted me to call my family. My 

mother answered the phone’’—and she describes that. 

‘‘The Captain of the cruise ship told me that I had to leave the 

ship with the Turkish police.’’ The captain promised to her dad that 

‘‘I would leave the ship for only a short period of time’’ and that 

there would be two people—‘‘He promised my Dad that two ship security officers would accompany me at all times. He ensured us 

that the officers would promptly return me to the ship.’’

She states, ‘‘I was interrogated by a Turkish police officer in an 

office at the port. I was then driven into the city to a Turkish police 

station where I was mocked and taunted as I sat crying and bewildered. Where were the two cruise line security officers?’’ That is 

what she asked. ‘‘I was then taken against my will, further from 

the cruise ship, to a hospital. A man . . . I could not understand 

lifted up my shirt and looked down my shorts without taking me 

to a private examining room.’’

That last little part, ‘‘without taking me to a private examining 

room,’’ is kind of meaningless. Why he was doing what he was 

doing is unbelievable. 

‘‘The ship sailed without me that evening. I was left in Turkey 

with no money, no plane ticket, no food, nothing . . . The cruise 

line did not offer me help with a flight, hotel arrangements, or anything. I could not speak the native language and I felt abandoned.’’

‘‘I had to borrow money to pay for a hotel.’’

So that is the statement of someone who could have said this 

publicly. It is written. It is part of the document. And so I am wrestling with how we can trust any statistic from any cruise line that 

would do what they did to a young bride. 

So help me, before we get on—and, by the way, Mr. Cummings, 

would you like the floor for a bit? Let me recognize you, Mr. 

Cummings. I am sorry. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I just want to pick up on this. You know, I read 

the statement that you just went over, and then I read the statement of George Smith and Maureen Smith, the parents, and I do 

not want to just zero in on this case because I know there are a 

lot of cases. But, you know, one of us asked about the crime scene 

situation, and in the statement of Mr. and Mrs. Smith, they talk 

141

about the security ‘‘failed to enter George’s cabin even after several 

complaints of a loud fight taking place inside. If they had entered 

his stateroom, our son and brother’s life may have been saved.’’ 

And this is what was very interesting. ‘‘The cruise ship was not 

locked down in Kusadasi, Turkey, the next port of call after 

George’s disappearance. Passengers and crew members were free to 

disembark as usual, potentially taking crucial evidence off of the 

cruise ship with them.’’

‘‘The Turkish authorities were rushed off the boat prior to completing a full investigation so that the cruise ship could make the 

next port of call on schedule.’’

This goes back to what I was saying a little earlier. You know, 

we have a thing in this country about taking care of our people. 

And then just adding on to what you just said about the way this 

bride was treated, I mean, when I began to read it, I felt chills to 

think that 1 day you have somebody being married and going off 

happily to enjoy their life and looking forward to children, and the 

next thing you know somebody comes to them and tells them your 

mate is no longer here. 

I think there is a problem. I think there is a major problem. And 

I think there is some kind of way we have to do better. Over and 

over again we see these wonderful commercials of cruises, talking 

about the good life, how happy everybody is going to be, and then 

we hear about these tragic situations. And so, you know, we have 

just got to figure out a way. This is not the American way. We can 

do better. And I am not trying to take anything away from you all, 

but some kind of way we have to figure out how we can use diplomacy, the tools that we may have at our disposal, because there 

is one thing that we have to keep in mind, that there is one thing 

that drives the industry, and that is money. And if people begin to 

understand—I mean, I tell you, if what you talked about a moment 

ago, Mr. Shays, were out there truly in the universe, I don’t know 

whether that cruise line would get any business. 

I think we have just got to look at a lot of options, but we cannot 

allow this to continue the way it is, because there is going to be 

another incident, whether we like it or not. So as I was saying a 

little bit earlier, I think we just have to find a way. 

I don’t have anything else. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Mr. Souder, do you want to make a point? I am going to have 

a few more questions. Should I go to you and then come to me? 

Mr. SOUDER. That is all right. 

Mr. SHAYS. We are going to conclude here. I need you all to help 

us out. I need you to tell us how we get a handle on this issue, 

and I am certain that all of you have thought about it. Where 

should we move this hearing to so we are not just voicing concern, 

but making a difference? For instance, should we, and can we legally do this to a foreign flag owner? Can we require all statistics 

be provided and define what those statistics are, what we want. 

Can we require that there be uniformity in terms of when someone 

is missing, that they be treated as a potential crime until determined otherwise? I mean, in other words, what should we be doing 

to make this work? I am not quite sure of the role of the Navy 

here. I just know my brother was a pilot in the Navy, and I had 

142

a brother who was an officer in the Coast Guard, so I love what 

you all do. Admiral, why don’t I start out with you? Tell me specifically what—I know in your statement you did—but specifically 

what the role of the Navy is in all the issues that we are discussing 

today? 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Our role is one on the high seas, primarily 

in the area of piracy. 

Mr. SHAYS. So primarily in piracy, which we are not spending 

time, I am not spending time focused on. But I would like to put 

a statement in the record from the Strategic Forecast. It is a Daily 

Terrorism Brief dated December 13th. I am going to submit this for 

the record, but they basically say cruise ships also fit into the targeting criteria of many militant groups. For certain militant Islamic groups a ship full of Israeli tourists would be especially enticing. 

I want to say that this is a huge issue, and I acknowledge it. I 

know the cruise industry is very concerned about this and doing 

what it can to protect itself. Because of the limited time, I am focused more on the issue of missing persons and crime. Thank you. 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Yes, sir. 

[The information referred to follows:]

143


27923.105
144


27923.106
145

Mr. SHAYS. But when they are in the high seas, that is your territory, right, in that area there? 

Admiral MCPHERSON. Yes, sir, and we are active in that area, 

yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Very active. We may just have a hearing, frankly, 

just on the issue of the role that you play and the concern we have 

about terrorism on cruise ships, and then you will be feeling a lot 

more in familiar territory. So thank you. 

Coast Guard and FBI, maybe tell me how you think we could 

make a constructive effort here? Let me just ask all of you, do you 

believe that we have a problem—you don’t have to define the problem—that this is an issue that we need to look at, Mr. Swecker? 

Mr. SWECKER. Certainly it is an issue. 

Mr. SHAYS. That we need to look at? 

Mr. SWECKER. Yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. Admiral Justice. 

Admiral JUSTICE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Admiral Crowley. 

Admiral CROWLEY. Yes, sir, absolutely. 

Mr. SHAYS. So we are in agreement with what we need to look 

at. Just help us out a little bit as to the directions you would suggest we go. Maybe, Mr. Swecker, you could start. 

Mr. SWECKER. Sir, I think you are onto a very significant issue 

when it comes to reporting. I think you have a very valid concern 

there. We share that concern, and my previous answers were just 

centered around just not having enough information——

Mr. SHAYS. I think I understood you, and I am comfortable with 

your position. 

Mr. SWECKER. All right. We see our role as to promptly investigate these crimes when they are reported, and we certainly have 

an interest in making sure that the crimes or potential crimes are 

reported. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Admiral Justice. 

Admiral JUSTICE. Seeing as we are part of the regulatory prevention side, and we are also, of course, part of the response to challenges, and I would just say we are committed to continuing to look 

at this. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, sir. 

Admiral Crowley, to add? Any suggestions on how we should be 

looking at it? 

Admiral CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Souder asked us to 

provide statistics to the subcommittee, and I think that is a good 

vehicle to offer further thoughts and deliberate suggestions to the 

committee as to a way ahead in the way of working with you to 

find a good direction. 

Mr. SHAYS. I am just going to make an observation, and then 

give the rest of the time to Mr. Souder. You know, there is this intriguing commercial that says what happens in Las Vegas stays in 

Las Vegas. I am getting the feeling that as we talk about the cruise 

line industry, it is a fun place for people to get away and sometimes just do things they might not do at home. It is also a floating 

casino, a huge amount of dollars. I am just wondering if there is 

not a way that they have less dollars on board ship, that people 

146

not carry a lot of extra dollars, that there be some way that they 

can do all that they want to do without having cash. 

The other area that I would have responded to this question is, 

that I asked you, is I am struck by the fact that—I am assuming 

that most, based on what I have read, that most of the employees 

are not necessarily American citizens, in fact, aren’t, that they are 

looking for less expensive labor. My sense is they don’t go by OSHA 

laws. They work real hard on board these ships, and it is pretty 

intense at times. But I am just not quite comfortable with the vetting process, and we are going to ask the industry how they vet individuals. 

I am just struck with the fact that when Jennifer was dropped 

off, that ship went on sailing with potential murderers on board, 

and they still may be on board today, and that sends a shiver down 

my back. 

Mr. Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. Thank you. I wanted to make just a couple of comments. We focused mostly on the cruise ships, but there are national security concerns here, and maritime security in general, 

and Chairman Shays and I actually did a joint hearing in New 

York Harbor, what, 2 years ago, looking at jurisdictional questions 

there and who was in charge of what, and whether we were looking 

at control ships, and he is specifically focused in this. I found it 

ironic. I went with Chairman Curt Weldon over to Tripoli at a conference on maritime security that was being held in Tripoli, the old 

pirate coast where we used to face all these type of things, and 

hopefully they have switched sides at this point, but it is interesting to watch this growing concern around the world about kind 

of quasi states. Like we see in narcotics and terrorism, these terrorists work in their whole network, the Nigerian networks around 

the world in diamonds and narcotics, and worrying about the high 

seas and whether they are going to be safe. 

I also wanted to thank the Coast Guard again. I got to go with 

what we used to call the Sea Marshals, which name, by the way, 

I liked better, in that you board these cruise ships as they come 

into these high-risk harbors because these are not only cities, but 

potential bombs coming in. If control were seized, or if the crews 

in fact aren’t checked, or if there are people who can get on and 

off, and the missing people question looms large in these ships as 

to the security if they hit particularly LA/Long Beach, where it 

would be a disaster with those ships coming in. 

But also, the reason I specifically asked to close is we have over 

20,000 people we know annually or more die a year because of illegal narcotics, and Mr. Cummings and I have worked on this issue 

a lot. I want to thank every FBI agent on the street, all the members of the Coast Guard who do this, the men and women in our 

armed forces in Afghanistan and Colombia and on the high seas 

who work with drug interdiction, but in particular, this morning 

the U.S. Navy lost a helicopter, and our prayers go with the families and the people who are doing the searching to see if there are 

any survivors. But every person out there has been working to save 

lives on our streets, and in the Eastern Pacific over 70 percent of 

the narcotics coming into the United States come from that zone. 

I know it is a terrible tragedy to those individuals, but they are out 

147

there helping protect the rest of us, and we thank you, not only in 

Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world, but also in the war 

on illegal narcotics. 

Mr. SHAYS. I would like to add my voice to what Mr. Souder said. 

We both, in the positions we are in, travel a great deal overseas 

where we see our men and women serving our country, whether it 

is the State Department, whether it is in Coast Guard, the Army, 

the Marines, the Navy, the FBI is overseas in all our embassies. 

I am frankly in awe of the dedication and the competence of the 

men and women who serve our country. And so we thank them and 

we thank all of you, all four of our witnesses. You have been excellent witnesses and we thank you for your service to our great country. Thank you. 

We are going to get to our next panel. Thank you for your patience. Our next panel is Mr. Michael Crye, president, International Council of Cruise Lines; Mr. Greg Purdy, director of security, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines; and Mr. Charlie Mandigo, Holland America Lines, Inc. We appreciate them for being here. 

If you would remain standing, we will swear you in and then 

hear your testimony. 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. SHAYS. Our witnesses have responded in the affirmative. 

Let me just say to all three of you, we thank you for your cooperation with this subcommittee. We thank you for being here. I 

have met with one or two of you, and I appreciate the interaction 

we had. What I would request is that we have a candid conversation. Obviously, there are particular cases which you are not going 

to want to go into in any detail or much detail, but I have a feeling 

this will not be the last time you appear before us, and we would 

like to start off just being as candid with each other as possible, 

and finding a way to deal with whatever problems we perceive and 

you all acknowledge that we can do, and do it together, rather than 

on opposite ends. 

Mr. Crye, why don’t we start with you? We have 5 minutes, but 

we will roll over it so you can keep going if you want to make sure 

that you have something on the record. Obviously, your statements 

are a part of the record, but we want to make sure that you feel 

that you are able to say whatever you need to say. 

STATEMENTS OF MICHAEL J. CRYE, PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF CRUISE LINES; GREGORY M. PURDY, 

DIRECTOR OF SECURITY, SAFETY, SECURITY AND ENVIRONMENT, ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.; AND CHARLES E. 

MANDIGO, DIRECTOR, FLEET SECURITY, HOLLAND AMERICA 

LINE, INC. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. CRYE 

Mr. CRYE. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairmen and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Michael Crye. I’m the president of the 

International Council of Cruise Lines. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the cruise industry. I have 

provided a written statement to the subcommittee that I would ask 

be entered into the record. Since you have already done so, thank 

you, sir. 

148

In my testimony today, I will explain our security practices and 

jurisdictional protocols as I understand them, and how many people have cruised safely over the past few years. However, there 

have been a few passengers that have regrettably had other experiences. My testimony cannot lessen their pain. No matter how rare 

the incidents are that we talk of today, it doesn’t make them any 

less relevant or serious. We recognize that and send our sympathies and condolences to those passengers and their families. 

The ICCL is a cruise industry trade association representing 15 

leading cruise companies, and approximately 100 companies providing goods and services to the member lines. Our members carry 

approximately 90 percent of the passengers in the North American 

vacation market. The mission of the ICCL is to participate in the 

regulatory and policy development process and promote all measures that foster a safe, secure and healthy cruise ship environment. 

ICCL is the industry representative to the International Maritime 

Organization and the International Labor Organization. Our vessels operate around the globe at approximately 800 ports worldwide. 

Over the past 20 years the industry has grown at a rate of approximately 8 percent per year with outstanding guest approval 

ratings. The industry also has an enviable record when it comes to 

safety and security. In 1995 the U.S. Coast Guard published the 

Report of the Cruise Ship Safety Review Task Force, and issued 

the following opinion: ‘‘Passenger vessels operating from U.S. ports 

are among the safest modes of transportation available.’’ I know of 

no reason for this opinion to have changed in the past 10 years. 

I also believe it is equally true for our member vessels operating 

to and from foreign ports. 

For many years the cruise lines have had on board security plans 

and procedures in place. These procedures include x-raying or examining every person, piece of luggage, and all supplies loaded 

onto the vessels. All passengers are screened prior to boarding and 

properly identified. Each crew member holds a U.S. seafarer’s visa, 

and has undergone a U.S. State Department background check. In 

addition, the ICCL Security Committee, comprised of the security 

directors of all of our member lines, meets every 60 days to discuss 

security and meet with law enforcement and intelligence agencies 

here in the United States. These meetings have been going on for 

the past decade. 

In the aftermath of September 11th, Congress passed landmark 

legislation, the Maritime Transportation Security Act, and concurrently, a new international agreement called the International Ship 

and Port Facility Security Code was finalized. These regulations 

became effective throughout the world on July 1, 2004. In developing these legal regimes, cruise ship security plans and practices 

were utilized as the blueprint of those that are applicable today 

throughout maritime industry. 

All ICCL cruise lines maintain strict security protocols and compliance with these United States and international mandates. Each 

ship has a designated security officer and a team of security personnel. Security personnel typically have a military or law enforcement background, and are trained specifically in respect to mariVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
149

time security as well as the basic principles of crime scene prevention—preservation. 

Extensive security plans were in effect and approved by the U.S. 

Coast Guard from 1996 through 2004. These plans were updated 

in 2004 in accordance with ISPS Code requirements. These plans 

enable the ship to increase its security measures at a moment’s notice. Each and every crew member on board and in the management chain knows what his or her responsibilities are, and has the 

training to accomplish these assignments. These are the goals of 

any effective security plan, and we have mature programs in this 

regard. 

There has been some debate over international maritime law and 

various jurisdictional issues with respect to providing protection for 

U.S. citizens. Ships are mobile, and they cross international boundaries. Therefore, a variety of governmental entities exercise law enforcement authority over each ship based upon where it is located. 

It becomes a matter of diplomatic negotiation as to which country 

takes the lead in applying its laws and which country follows. 

Congress has recognized these well-established principles, and 

has passed several laws that reinforce the notion that the United 

States may enforce its laws on board ships wherever they operate 

in the world when U.S. citizens or U.S. interests are involved. 

18 U.S.C., the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction of 

the United States, has already been discussed, and the Coast 

Guard’s broad authority under 14 U.S.C. 89. The United States can 

and does assert jurisdiction based upon the residence and location 

of the victim or perpetrator, the site of the incident, the nature of 

the act in question, our own national interest in the matter, regardless of any other factors such as the ship’s registration or 

itinerary. 

Any alleged criminal acts occurring on the high seas involving 

U.S. citizens are reported to the appropriate law enforcement agencies, which may include the FBI. Other incidents affecting security 

are reported to the flag state, in addition to any reporting requirements applicable in the United States. 

In 1999 our membership publicly adopted a policy of zero tolerance for crime, that requires allegations of on board crime be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities, which for 

vessels calling on U.S. ports or crime involving U.S. citizens would 

appropriately include the FBI. 

To summarize, the cruise industry is one of the most highly regulated industries in the world today. U.S. law protects American 

passengers on board cruise ships. The U.S. Coast Guard has jurisdiction over all ships entering U.S. ports, regardless of flag. The 

FBI, by virtue of Federal statutes and longstanding legal precedent, has jurisdiction to investigate allegation of serious crimes on 

board ships. This power specifically extends to incidents in international waters involving Americans. 

Regarding piracy. A cruise ship is comparable to a secure building with a 24-hour security guard. Since vessels operate in a controlled environment, access to the ship can be strictly enforced. 

Available information indicates that crime on board ships is extremely low compared to similar incidents reported ashore, undoubtedly, due to the nature of a cruise environment where pasVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
150

sengers and crew are screened and access is strictly limited. The 

recent attack on the Seabourn Spirit is the first known attempt of 

piracy against a cruise vessel in the past 20 years, despite there 

being over 3,900 incidents against commercial shipping in general 

throughout the world this year. 

In the case of a piracy incident, cruise ships are fitted with ship 

security alert systems to immediately notify a competent authority 

of the attack. The security teams are on board, are well trained in 

methods to prevent unauthorized access to the vessel at sea or in 

port. 

To conclude, cruising continues to be one of the safest modes of 

transportation available today. Our highest priority is the safety 

and security of our passengers, crew and vessels, and our safety 

record is a testament. Over 90 million passengers have safely 

sailed on cruise ships over the past 20 years. While incidents are 

rare, we are not dismissive, nor do we shirk our responsibility as 

an industry to accomplish and address such matters—to acknowledge and address such matters. 

For those individuals, who are missing loved ones, the ICCL and 

our membership, extend our deepest sympathies. While it is impossible for an outsider to feel their pain, what we can do as an industry is to do our best to minimize the chances of a crime of any sort 

on our ships, and if that happens, to do our best to ensure those 

crimes are properly investigated and prosecuted. 

Thank you very much, chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crye follows:]

151


27923.107
152


27923.108
153


27923.109
154


27923.110
155


27923.111
156


27923.112
157


27923.113
158


27923.114
159


27923.115
160


27923.116
161


27923.117
162


27923.118
163


27923.119
164


27923.120
165


27923.121
166

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Crye. 

Mr. Purdy. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY M. PURDY 

Mr. PURDY. Chairman Shays, Chairman Souder, Congressman 

Cummings, my name is Greg Purdy. I am the director of safety, security and environment for Royal Caribbean Cruises, Limited. 

I am a graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and served 

in the U.S. Coast Guard for 16 years in a variety of positions, one 

of which was a commanding officer of a cutter. My experience includes law enforcement activities, narcotics and migrant interdiction and security matters both within the United States and internationally. I have been with Royal Caribbean almost 5 years, the 

majority of that time in my current position. 

The highest priority of our company is to ensure the safety and 

security of all our guests and crew members. We care about everyone on our ships, and we are truly concerned about their wellbeing. We do this because it’s the right thing to do, and because 

it’s just good business. 

As you know, crime can touch any of us in virtually any settings. 

This is one of the sad realities of our society today. In terms of our 

ships, one crime is one too many. It is impossible to be immune to 

crime. However, we work diligently to prevent it, and we’re committed to the safety and security of everyone on board our ships. 

Since the founding of our company some 35 years ago, we’ve 

maintained a safety and security focused culture. This includes 

close working relationships with law enforcement agencies in the 

United States and throughout the world, extensive security policies 

and procedures, a significant security staff and infrastructure, and 

the utilization of state-of-the-art security technology. Our company 

works regularly and closely with the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as Interpol and various foreign authorities. 

Likewise, Royal Caribbean actively participates in an industrybased security committee, which is part of the International Council of Cruise Lines. To facilitate these activities involving various 

Federal law enforcement agencies, members of our own staff have 

U.S. security clearances and secure methods of communications 

provided by the Federal Government. We work with these agencies 

as well as with private security consultants to identify and mitigate 

security risks wherever we operate. 

Regarding our ships, our security measures include the screening 

of all luggage, carry-ons, provisions. This screening is conducted 

with x-ray machines, metal detectors, hand searches, sniffer dogs 

and other methods. Every one of our ships has a chief security officer who is a trained military veteran or a career security specialist. 

Their sole responsibility is to ensure the safety of our guests and 

crew. These security officers oversee teams of trained security staff 

who are responsible for security procedures on board our ships 24 

hours a day. Surveillance cameras throughout our ships assist in 

these efforts. 

167

All of our ships use an access control system we call SeaPass. 

The SeaPass system provides all guests and crew members with an 

ID card similar to a credit card, which provides us access to their 

digital photo and personal identification information. Each time a 

guest or crew member boards or departs a ship, they must swipe 

their card. Security staff compare the photo and personal identification information on a computer screen with the person standing 

before them. This technology allows the ship to know which guests 

and crew members are registered on board and which are not at 

any given time. 

All guests and crew members at all sailings are placed on an official manifest. Ships sailing to or from the United States submit 

these manifests in advance to U.S. Federal law enforcement agencies for analysis. 

Our company also maintains a strict zero tolerance policy on 

crime. Whenever an allegation of crime involves a U.S. citizen, it 

is our policy and our practice to report it to the FBI. As I stated 

previously, on mattes related to safety and security, we work closely with the FBI, the U.S. Coast Guard, international authorities 

and private security consultants. 

Cruise ships are one of the safest ways to travel, and crime on 

board cruise ships is extremely rare. On those occasions when an 

allegation does arise, we work very hard to assist our guests or 

crew members as well as their families, and we fully cooperate 

with any investigation conducted by any law enforcement agency or 

prosecutor’s office. Again, we do this because it’s the right thing to 

do and because we are genuinely concerned about everyone on 

board our ships. 

We understand the impact a crime can have, not only on the victim, but also on family members and traveling companions. We 

constantly work to prevent such events, but should they arise, we 

cooperate fully with law enforcement agencies in their investigation 

and assist those affected. 

I would like to take a moment to address an issue of particular 

interest to you, Chairman Shays, the matter of George Smith. The 

Smith family has suffered a tragic loss, and we extend our deepest 

sympathies to them. 

We do not know what happened to George Smith, only that he 

tragically disappeared from a cruise, but we continue to cooperate 

fully with the FBI in hope that the agency will be able to provide 

solid answers and some measure of closure for the Smith family. 

As to Royal Caribbean’s efforts, we believe that despite this terrible tragedy, the cruise line handled George Smith’s disappearance 

correctly and responsibly. Specifically, we responded to the sole 

complaint made by a guest, we promptly called in the FBI and local 

authorities to conduct an investigation. We secured the Smiths’ 

cabin and the metal overhang, and we conducted a thorough search 

of the ship. 

We subsequently interviewed guests and crew who had any 

knowledge of the Smiths’ whereabouts that night, and we collected 

all possible evidence, from security camera tapes to charge-card receipts, and provided it to the FBI. 

We know this is a traumatic time for George Smith’s wife, parents and other family members and friends, but we believe we reVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00173 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
168

sponded appropriately, and we will continue to work with the FBI 

until George Smith’s disappearance is explained. 

In closing I would only reiterate that our company and our industry maintain robust safety and security policies and practices. 

However, as I previously stated, even one incident is one too many. 

We are committed to providing a safe and secure environment for 

everyone on board our ships, and the well-being of our guests and 

crew will always remain the highest priority. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Purdy follows:]

169


27923.122
170


27923.123
171


27923.124
172


27923.125
173


27923.126
174


27923.127
175


27923.128
176


27923.129
177


27923.130
178

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Purdy. 

Mr. Mandigo. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. MANDIGO 

Mr. MANDIGO. Thank you. Chairman Shays, Chairman Souder, 

and subcommittee member Cummings, my name is Charlie 

Mandigo, and on behalf of Carnival Corp., I wish to thank you for 

inviting me to testify before you today regarding issues related to 

international maritime security. I am here today in my capacity as 

director of fleet security for Holland America Line, Inc., a Carnival 

Corp. company, a position I have held for over 2 years. 

Immediately prior to joining Holland America, I served with the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation for 27 years, working out of offices 

in New York, Chicago, Washington, DC, and Seattle. In my final 

assignment, I served as Special Agent in Charge of the Seattle Office, where I was responsible for all FBI matters in the State of 

Washington. I have been involved in numerous high-profile domestic and international terrorism investigations, including overseeing 

the investigation of Ahmed Rassam, the so-called Millennium 

Bomber, who was convicted in 2001 for attempting to blow up the 

Los Angeles International Airport during peak air travel in December 1999. 

As director of fleet security, I am respondent for overseeing the 

security of Holland America’s 12 cruise ships and three other vessels owned by another Carnival subsidiary, Windstar Cruises. As 

you may know, Carnival Corp. and PLC operate a fleet of 79 modern passenger vessels, making it the largest cruise company in the 

world. The parent corporation’s 12 widely recognized cruise brands 

serve markets in North and South America, the United Kingdom 

and mainland Europe, providing cruises to vacation destinations 

worldwide. 

Because of its significant worldwide presence, Carnival is attuned to the importance of international maritime security and 

strives to provide a safe and secure cruise experience for its passengers. We are in regular contact with governmental authorities, 

other cruise industry companies, and the International Council of 

Cruise Lines in order to assess potential security threats and to deliver, develop preventive measure and possible responses to those 

threats. As part of this effort, we regularly participate in cruise industry security meetings, share security information within the industry and with governmental agencies, and interact with area 

maritime security committees. 

Cruise ship security standards have been under development and 

improvement during the last 20 years. These requirements have recently been strengthened with the adoption of the International 

Ship and Port Facility Security Code and accompanying laws by 

the United States and other governments worldwide. These new security regimes have advanced the existing security measures for 

our passengers and our ships. Carnival works closely with foreign 

countries in which its vessels make port calls to assess potential 

threats to our passengers, and to ensure that it is compliant with 

applicable laws governing the security of our vessels. 

In short, Carnival’s highest priority is ensuring the safety and 

security of its ships’ passengers and crew. 

179

My written testimony has been submitted for the record, and I 

request it be accepted. I am pleased to be here to participate in this 

hearing, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mandigo follows:]

180


27923.131
181


27923.132
182


27923.133
183


27923.134
184


27923.135
185


27923.136
186


27923.137
187

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you, Mr. Mandigo, we appreciate your testimony, Mr. Purdy and Mr. Crye, as well. 

We will start out with Chairman Souder. 

Mr. SOUDER. First, as I am sure you are aware, but in the interest of full disclosure, I represent northeast Indiana and there aren’t 

a lot of cruise ships home ported in northern Indiana. In fact, to 

use an Indiana expression, you could count them on one hand and 

have more than enough fingers left to bowl. 

But we have a lot of Hoosiers who go on the cruise ships all year 

long, whether it is up to Alaska or down in the Caribbean. And so 

they are concerned. They have seen the things on the news, and 

it is an opportunity for us to explore some of these questions. 

Mr. Crye, I wanted to first try to clarify something that has confused me a little bit. We have talked about the different legal 

standards, and you referred to your testimony, about the different 

standards and different places. Would you agree that a U.S. citizen 

has the most rights when they are in U.S. waters? 

Mr. CRYE. I would. 

Mr. SOUDER. You said, I believe, in your testimony, that most of 

the time in the Caribbean we have agreements with that, but there 

are some places that there aren’t as many protections. 

Mr. CRYE. I would say that under 18 U.S.C., the sections respecting the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United 

States, the FBI, and by deputization, other agencies of the Federal 

Government, have the authority to investigate fully any accusation 

of crime on the high seas, particularly for vessels that are calling 

on U.S. ports, but also under the theory of the special maritime 

and territorial jurisdiction for vessels that do not call on U.S. ports. 

Mr. SOUDER. Do cruise ship lines tell their customers which 

areas they may be going into where their protections may be more 

problematic because of past diplomatic, how fast they can get clearance, because your testimony suggested there were differences in 

the Caribbean, and you just stated that you thought they were 

safest—you didn’t say safest—you said the most protections in the 

United States. Is there any way that a person going on a cruise 

line could find out those relative—admitting even that even in the 

worst cases, your statistics aren’t overwhelmingly bad. I am just 

asking you, if I wanted to know where I would have the most 

rights, would I be able to find that out? 

Mr. CRYE. Well, No. 1, sir, there is requirements under the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code for publication of information regarding incidents of piracy, incidents of lawlessness, 

etc., and that’s a requirement that is placed upon the vessel to ensure that they meet the appropriate security level or they simply 

don’t go there. 

Mr. SOUDER. But you don’t give that to consumers. If somebody 

asks, would you tell them that, the different countries? 

Mr. CRYE. The information is publicly available on the International Maritime Organization’s Web site regarding higher-threat 

security areas. The Department of State of the United States publishes traveler’s advisories, etc., sir. 

Mr. SOUDER. In pursuing this slightly differently, are protections—are there different——

Mr. SHAYS. Could the gentleman just yield a second? 

188

Mr. SOUDER. Yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. When you say they publish, they don’t publish 

crimes, they publish piracy, correct? 

Mr. CRYE. They publish traveler’s advisories. They also on the 

International Maritime Organization’s——

Mr. SHAYS. I want to make sure you are hearing my question, 

and answer the question, then give me the details. They publish 

warnings about potential terrorist activities, piracy and so on, not 

about crimes being committed on a ship, correct? 

Mr. CRYE. Correct, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. I am sorry. 

Mr. SOUDER. My understanding of your answer, which to me illustrated what we were trying to do earlier, is that in fact, you 

would have to really know what you are looking for to find the 

data, other than going to the State Department and saying, oh, you 

know, it is better not to go to Nigeria, or better not to go to Ethiopia or Cuba. In other words, you don’t give the data. You don’t 

voluntarily say there are different legal standards in these different areas. You would have to know what you are looking for to 

find that. 

Mr. CRYE. Well, sir, I think any international traveler that goes 

on international travel, looks at the State Department advisories; 

those types of advisories are readily available to the public. Most 

cruises are sold through travel agents, and those travel agents, we 

frequently communicate with them about issues that should be of 

concern to them. 

Mr. SOUDER. I am sorry. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so to 

speak, but that answer is not acceptable. Now, it is one thing to 

say there is a State Department threat that you are going to go to 

a certain area, and that if you want to go down—we have had 

warnings in Panama, for example. If you want to go out in the jungle there with the Colombian guerrillas coming over, that might be 

unsafe. But I don’t think it is generally known, somebody who goes 

on a cruise ship, that they have certain rights in some areas, and 

there may be less rights in other areas on the cruise ship when 

they are on a contained ship. And that to suggest a comparison between the two is just unfair. 

I am not even suggesting it is a huge problem. I am just saying 

that if I really wanted to find that out, I would have to do a lot 

of digging, and I travel a lot. But I wouldn’t have thought—that 

would be like telling me if I go on a CODEL with the military, that 

I am going to run into—or some kind of a private trip, that I am 

going to run into whole bunches of legal differences in different 

places. I was just asking a question, and you are trying to tell me 

it is a State Department thing. That doesn’t have anything to do 

with my question. 

The question was, is that are there standards of evidence procedure if I am sexually assaulted and so on? Am I going to wind up 

in an international law different if I am going to some Caribbean 

countries and other Caribbean countries? Obviously, if I go as an 

individual and go off on my own and rent a car, I am going to 

check that more. But when I am on a cruise ship, I think most people assume there is some kind of uniform standard, and what we 

are learning here is that there isn’t, that we don’t know how seriVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00194 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
189

ous a problem that is because we don’t have the data, but what you 

told me, and you are continuing to say, is you are not going to give 

me that information, I have to be able to figure it out as a traveler. 

And part of the question is, is how much disclosure should there 

be? 

Mr. CRYE. Sir, are you talking about on board the ship? 

Mr. SOUDER. Yes, that was the——

Mr. CRYE. Are you speaking of on board the ships? 

Mr. SOUDER. I think anybody who is watching this hearing or 

look in the record will show that you stated that you had the most 

legal rights in U.S. territories. You stated in your testimony that 

in most Caribbean countries, we have exchange, which suggests 

that in some Caribbean countries there wouldn’t. And then you got 

off into a terrorism, State Department thing, which is not what my 

question was. You answered the question. 

Mr. CRYE. Sir, I——

Mr. SOUDER. You said that we could go to the Maritime Commission if we wanted to try to find out what the State Department 

thing was, which clearly said—when I asked you the overt question, do you publish the data of your legal rights for different parts 

of your trip, basically, you told me no. 

Mr. CRYE. Sir, in the ticket package, you are advised of your 

rights, your legal rights respecting the carriage. You’re notified of 

that when you enter into the contract with the cruise line with respect to your legal rights, and the responsibilities of the cruise line 

respecting the laws that apply, as well as their responsibilities and 

your responsibilities. Is that the question? 

Mr. SOUDER. That is helpful. Now, let me ask you this question. 

Do all the cruise lines have the same disclosure, or does it vary by 

cruise line? 

Mr. CRYE. They have a responsibility under the laws of the 

United States to disclose to their passenger what your rights and 

responsibilities are of both parties to a contract, and generally, it 

depends on where the ticket is sold, it depends on where the passage occurs, it depends on where the vessel is domiciled and 

flagged, etc. 

Mr. SOUDER. Does your association have a standard that you 

suggest to your members that says, this is the legal rights, that 

you should do that, or when I sign up is it going to vary by cruise 

line what they are telling me my legal rights are? 

Mr. CRYE. It’s a matter of U.S. commercial law. 

Mr. SOUDER. So it will be the same on each cruise line? 

Mr. CRYE. It will be the same with respect to the U.S. citizens, 

where they buy their tickets, etc. 

Mr. SOUDER. So there will be a difference. I wanted to know 

whether it was everybody or just your members. So would you say 

every cruise line anywhere based in the world, if you get on a 

cruise, whether you board in Norway, you board in the Caribbean, 

you board in Mexico, or board in the United States, you are going 

to get informed of your rights as a U.S. citizen? 

Mr. CRYE. If the ticket is sold in the United States, the U.S. commercial laws apply. 

Mr. SOUDER. Would you then agree that you are more likely to 

have your full rights if you buy your ticket in the United States? 

190

Mr. CRYE. Sir, it depends on what you mean by full rights, because different countries interpret full rights differently. 

Mr. SOUDER. That in itself answers my question. 

Mr. CRYE. And there are those who would argue that the laws 

of Norway or the laws of the United Kingdom, or maybe even the 

laws of Bahamas are—provide you with more rights in a commercial contract than you are provided in the United States. 

Mr. SOUDER. Fair point, but the key thing here would be is a 

buyer should know, based on where they are buying their ticket, 

their rights may vary. 

A second thing is that would in a similar way in the different 

cruise ships, if you were in a cruise that you boarded outside of 

U.S. law—I think you kind of answered this already—but would 

laws of evidence collection, laws of reporting, potential penalties if 

the cruise line didn’t handle something, would that be different 

than if you boarded in the United States? 

Mr. CRYE. I’m not sure I fully understand the question. Countries have different systems of law and different evidentiary standards, depending upon whether a case is brought in that country or 

not. I thought we were here today though talking the enforcement 

of U.S. laws for U.S. citizens. I was not prepared to talk about the 

rules of evidence in the Bahamas or the United Kingdom, or the 

Netherlands, which are other flag states of the cruise industry. 

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield, I think it is——

Mr. SOUDER. I am baffled because, of course, you are here to talk 

about those things because your testimony, as your testimony said, 

this went into international waters, there is cross-jurisdictional. So 

I start to ask some cross-jurisdictional questions, and you are saying that you weren’t prepared to answer those questions. I don’t 

know how to ask a question. I yield back. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Cummings. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I will tell you, Mr. Crye, I have to ask you this. 

Have you read Ms. Jennifer Hagel Smith’s statement? Are you familiar with it? 

Mr. CRYE. I read it briefly just at the beginning of the hearing 

today, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Are you married? 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir, I am. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. One of the things that she says—I only have one 

question of you because I want to talk to Mr. Purdy, but here is 

a woman who has lost her husband, and it just seems like she is 

treated in a way that is simply incredible. It is hard for me to even 

imagine if that happened to my daughter. I would have a rough 

time. But then if I read that Michael Crye, president of the International Council of Cruise Lines—and I am just reading from her 

statement, OK—blamed George’s death on both of us by stating, 

‘‘it’s difficult if someone chooses to do harm to themselves or to 

their companion.’’ 

Then she goes on to say, ‘‘I don’t know if Mr. Crye is married 

or if he has children of his own, but I find his reckless remarks offending our reputations and character both hurtful and irresponsible.’’

Mr. CRYE. May I address that? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, please. 

191

Mr. CRYE. There was a media interview that was a wide-ranging 

media interview. It was not addressing the facts of the George 

Smith case. It was addressing other cases and other facts, and as 

it relates to one of the four possibilities that Chairman Shays previously addressed, that was certainly one of the possibilities, that 

people do harm to themselves. They do it here in the United States 

every day. They do it in your jurisdiction as well. It had nothing 

to do, the question, the answer, in a media interview, had nothing 

to do with the George Smith or Mrs. Smith situation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I guess the reason why I even brought it up is 

because I think sometimes in these hearings, we are certainly trying to find answers to prevent things, but then there come some 

facts that sort of just comes, and it is like shocking to the conscious, and you cannot rest until you try to figure out why is this? 

I understand what you just said, and I guess the thing that I was 

concerned about is whether we are suffering from what Senator 

Obama calls ‘‘an empathy deficit.’’ I think that we just have to be 

very careful in circumstances. 

I will tell you, just the thought of getting married 1 day and then 

10 days later on my honeymoon, it is a nightmare. It is just very, 

very, very, it is painful to me just thinking about it. I didn’t even 

experience it. 

Mr. CRYE. I agree, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me go to you, Mr. Purdy. What is your position? 

Mr. PURDY. My position is director of safety, security and environment at Royal Caribbean Cruises, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So that means you are the top law enforcement 

person; is that an accurate description? 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, we have two operating brands under our company, and I work at the corporate level, developing policy standards, conducting oversight, audits, and assisting if we have serious 

situations, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. What is the policy when it comes to a crime 

scene? That has been an issue here. I am not trying to get into the 

Smith case. I am just trying to figure out what is your general policy? 

Mr. PURDY. The general policy is first, once we establish that 

there has been even any allegation, that we secure the scene. We 

preserve the evidence and we make a report to the authorities. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think you said that in the Smith case you all 

promptly reported to the FBI; is that right? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. In fact, this is indoctrinated in our personnel that receive these calls. That call came from the ship to 

Miami. Miami received the call, the duty person, at approximately 

3 a.m., and immediately, without questioning further guidance, 

called the duty FBI person and notified them of this allegation in 

this case. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Now, when we have a situation where—I think 

it was you who said it—where you said that there is some—correct 

me, one of you said this—that sometimes the FBI is notified and 

sometimes the FBI is not. Of course, I am talking about where 

there is a U.S. citizen involved. Did one of you say that? 

192

Mr. CRYE. Mr. Cummings, I believe that was myself. May I 

elaborate? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Yes, please. 

Mr. CRYE. First of all, sir, the FBI has provided the industry 

some guidance on what they consider to be a case that meets the 

threshold of their opening a case file. Second, there are certain 

standing agreements with other agencies of the United States, such 

as ICE, within the Department of Homeland Security, Immigrations Customs Enforcement group, within the Department of 

Homeland Security, with respect to reporting of narcotics offenses. 

In the event that the FBI doesn’t want to take a report of a theft 

that doesn’t meet their threshold, then we must in fact report that 

to another authority, typically the State enforcement authorities, or 

the port where the vessel calls, etc. 

In addition, given the fact that the FBI does not have a great 

deal of resources in certain locations like Alaska, we have a standing agreement to report offenses that occur on board in Alaskan 

waters to the Alaska State Police, and other situations that involve 

foreign nationals are not necessarily reported to the FBI. Does that 

answer your question? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is very helpful, yes. 

Mr. Purdy, what is the policy with regard to—let me just tell you 

where I am going instead of going through the back door. You have 

Ms. Smith, she leaves the ship and then she has apparently left 

there in a foreign country to talk to the Turkish police. Just give 

me a general idea of what your policy is, because let me tell you 

something, I don’t think there is one Member of Congress, if somebody walked into our office and slipped and fell, and let us say they 

were by themselves, I guarantee you there is not probably one 

Member of Congress that would not make sure there is a staff person that gets that person to the hospital, stays with them, and 

sticks with them until the issue is resolved. That is just for a slip 

and fall. 

Here you have someone who has lost their husband in a foreign 

country, so I am just wondering what is your policy with regard to 

that? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. This is the first time that I have read that 

statement from Mrs. Smith. My understanding of this is that she 

was required to go off the ship, along with our ship’s captain, several other officers, and some other guests as part of the investigation. 

Our policy is that we are very caring for people in this. Safety 

is our highest priority. In this case, my understanding is that we 

provided a female guest relations manager as an escort. We also 

had an escort from the U.S. Consulate Office, as well as the ship’s 

port agent to provide for any, and to assist with accommodations. 

We also offered Mrs. Smith the ability to stay on board the ship 

until the next port of call where she could depart the ship. I think 

it was her decision to leave in Kusadasi, which meant flying out 

the next day. We left her the contact information for the port agent 

should she need anything. 

That aside, if this happened the way it did, we regret any action 

which made Mrs. Smith feel insecure or unsafe in any way. 

193

Mr. CUMMINGS. I think she said she was left, she didn’t have any 

money, and she was basically stuck in a foreign country. So what 

you are saying is that in reading her statement, if that is what—

I know you are denying you have other information, I understand 

that. But what you are saying is that if her statement was accurate, that would be contrary to your policies? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Because you would not be in business. 

Mr. PURDY. Absolutely. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Just a few more questions. I just want to go to 

the statement of George Smith and Ms. Maureen Smith. I want to 

just figure out, what is your policy? Let’s say a criminal act, a suspected criminal act takes place. You have a crime scene. Do you 

lock down the crime scene? Say, it is a room, for example. I am just 

dealing with your policies, OK? What is your policy? 

Mr. PURDY. Our policy is that if there is any allegation of a 

crime, that we will secure the scene, preserve the evidence, contact 

the authorities and fully cooperate with the investigation. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I take it that you are saying also that the crime 

scene would be preserved as best you could? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Is that made more difficult when you have a 

floating crime scene? 

Mr. PURDY. I would say that because of the environment where 

we operate, it is perhaps more challenging; however, any request 

from the authorities, we will do our best to honor that request and 

cooperate. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Who would be the authorities then? 

Mr. PURDY. The authorities in this case, we were in touch with 

the FBI because this involved a U.S. citizen. We also were in touch 

with the Turkish authorities because the ship was in Turkish port. 

We notified the Greek authorities because the ship had sailed 

through Greek waters, and as a matter of fact, they launched their 

own search. We also notified the U.S. consulate in Turkey, and we 

also notified the Bahamas Authority in London because our ship is 

a Bahamian registered ship. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Let me ask you this. What is your policy then, 

if you have a possible crime taking place, let’s say you know or you 

suspect that somebody on that ship may have done something. Are 

people allowed to go on and off the ship? 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, again, it’s case by case, and we cooperated with 

the authorities. In this case, the Turkish authorities took the lead 

on the investigation in the initial stages, and we complied with 

every request that the Turkish authorities had, as well as being in 

communication with the FBI. 

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Please. 

Mr. SHAYS. That is not really the question that he asked. He basically asked you what is your policy, and what you sound like is 

that your policy is whatever you have to do by the authorities. 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, our policy is to fully cooperate with the authorities. If they determine that we need to lock down the ship or do 

anything with that ship or the people, we comply. 

194

Mr. SHAYS. But don’t you have your own policy? I mean why does 

the authorities tell you? I mean aren’t there some basic things—

hold on 1 second, Mr. Crye, I will come to you—aren’t there some 

basic, just sound practices that you should do, period, case closed, 

and aren’t you trained and don’t you train your people to do them? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir, we do. In this case, our training is again to 

secure the scene, to preserve the evidence and to cooperate with 

the authorities. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. So going back to what Mr. Shays was saying, you 

do have a policy with regard to that? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. And that policy is written somewhere, is that 

right? 

Mr. PURDY. We have a comprehensive security management system, and it does detail how our security need to preserve crime 

scenes, or alleged crime scenes. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I am going to ask that question again. Is it written somewhere? You said you have a system that does this and 

does that, but is it a written document? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir, it is written. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. I mean is it a book or volumes or what? 

Mr. PURDY. It is a system of electronic manuals. 

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman would yield? 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Sure, please. 

Mr. SHAYS. We would like you to make sure that is submitted for 

the record. 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. What is the document called? 

Mr. PURDY. The document is our Safety Management System, 

sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Mr. CRYE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cummings, the International Safety Management System, which is part of the Safety of Life at Sea 

Treaty, which is widely ratified throughout the world, identifies the 

requirement to maintain a safety management system. The safety 

management system controls many, many protocols. There are certain things that would be contained within the safety management 

system that should not be included in a public record. But it is a 

requirement under international law to maintain such a system. 

That system is audited by your flag state, by your internal auditors, by your external auditors, and is available for port state control inspectors such as the U.S. Coast Guard, which would be the 

port state control inspectors here in the United States. I am not 

sure that you want an entire safety management system turned 

over to you for the purposes of this record, and second of all, I am 

not sure that you want to be a record that then becomes a part of 

a public record of this hearing. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Shays can tell you what he wants. But let 

me just tell you what I specifically asked, is it a book, a volume, 

what is it? All I am saying is that I thought it was something in 

the form of a manual or something that people, when they come 

on board, when they begin to work for you in law enforcement or 

whatever, regular employees, whoever, would read. And you are 

saying it is something, an electronic kind of thing; is that right? 

195

Mr. PURDY. No, sir, it is a manual. We keep it updated just electronically, but the crew members have access to this document. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. That is what I am interested in. Mr. Shays may 

want something else. 

You were just talking about this system. Does the system talk 

about how you prevent evidence from being taken off of the boat? 

Let me tell you why I ask you that. Mr. George Smith talks in his 

statement about the cruise ship was not locked down in a certain 

city in Turkey, the next port of call after George’s disappearance. 

Passengers and crew members were free to disembark as usual, potentially—listen to what he says—potentially taking crucial evidence off the cruise ship with them. If that were true, and I am 

assuming it is, would that be contrary to that policy that you just 

talked about? 

Mr. PURDY. For our company, sir, because they have identified, 

in working with the authorities, that the alleged scene was the 

cabin, we had posted a guard in front of the cabin and the overhang, secured those areas until they completed their investigation, 

and nobody had access to those areas. 

Mr. CUMMINGS. All right, thank you. 

Mr. SHAYS. Could I say something to you, Mr. Purdy? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. I mean I know I can. I want to say something to you. 

I want to make sure that you are telling me fact and not policy, 

because you are under oath, and we need to make sure that everything you put under oath is really accurate. If you have total confidence in what you just said, that is good. I just hope you are not 

being set up by someone. Do you know for a fact that it was totally 

secured, no one else went in there except those people who were 

authorized? 

Mr. PURDY. That is my understanding, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. And your understanding is based on what? 

Mr. PURDY. My understanding is on reviewing with our staff, 

who were involved in the actual case. 

Mr. SHAYS. Their accusation is that may not be true, so I just 

want to make sure you are comfortable. You are saying the staff 

that is involved with the security has told you that this was totally 

controlled, no one got into it except whom? Who got in there? 

Mr. PURDY. To my knowledge, the Turkish authorities along with 

the security staff were the only ones who had access to——

Mr. SHAYS. Security staff of whom? 

Mr. PURDY. Of the ship, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Your own security staff? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Would you define that security staff as 1, 2, 5, 10, 

20 people, how many people? 

Mr. PURDY. I know we had one security staff posted to secure the 

cabin. I am not aware of how many were there that——

Mr. SHAYS. Because the more people that go in, the more it gets 

disturbed. What comfort level should I have that—you know, how 

you define your own security staff? I mean there are police officers, 

and there are detectives, and there are people in our country who 

have greater knowledge of what happens on a crime scene. You are 

saying that the only people who had access were the Turkish offiVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00201 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
196

cials and your security staff. I am going to get into how your security staff are trained, to know the number and so on. 

Mr. Ruppersberger. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Thank you. 

The first thing, I think the Smith incident was very unfortunate. 

The facts will come out, and I am glad we are reviewing this. Unfortunately, for the family it might be difficult, but we need to 

learn from past incidents. 

I am interested though from my perspective, we are talking 

about over 5 to 6 million Americans that are involved in your industry, and I think so far that your industry has been very positive. It has allowed a lot of people to have pleasure, to go places 

they normally would not be able to go. But whenever an incident, 

even if it is a small amount of cases and a trend starts, I think 

an industry such as yours that does so well and has basically a 

good safety record except for some of these incidents, that you have 

to reevaluate where you are. I asked a question of the first panel: 

would they be willing, that was the Coast Guard, the FBI and the 

Navy, to meet with your industry, and to review what the standards are. 

I knew there were some issues, international law requires you to 

have certain protocols, and there is an audit, and I think that is 

important because I think everybody needs to be held accountable, 

but maybe we need to reevaluate that, at least on behalf of the 5 

million Americans that we represent that are within that industry. 

So what I am going to ask you—and then I will take your question—I am going to ask you, will you work as an industry with the 

members of the FBI, and our subcommittee? You say that you don’t 

want what we want. I am on the Intelligence Committee. There is 

a lot I can’t talk about, but I would like our staff here to review 

and evaluate under direction of Chairman Shays, and to find out 

what issues need to be dealt with so we can make sure that all 

Americans who use your industry. A lot of you are not American 

ships, so we might not have the same authority or not. So I am 

asking the question. Where are you from, Mr. Crye? I had to move 

in and out in this hearing. 

Mr. CRYE. I am the president of the trade association, sir, of the 

International Council of Cruise Lines. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. How about you, Mr. Purdy? 

Mr. PURDY. I am from Royal Caribbean Cruises, sir. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Mr. Mandigo. 

Mr. MANDIGO. Holland America. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Would you all be willing——

Mr. CRYE. Can I answer your question? 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I am asking the question, so I would love 

an answer. 

Mr. CRYE. We do so every 60 days. We meet today, every 60 days 

here in Washington with the U.S. Coast Guard, the Department of 

Transportation, the Office of Naval Intelligence, the Department of 

State, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, the Department of Defense—the Central Intelligence Agency sometimes comes—the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration. And every 

60 days in a meeting that we host here in Washington to discuss 

197

specifically the issues that you address, and we would be glad to 

include your committee staff. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I think that is great. By the way, you have 

a good record. But here is what I would like to see more. I think 

you are dealing with those different groups, and you are talking 

about issues involving terrorism and safety and things of that nature. I understand that. I am more interested though—and sometimes we think about this—in your standards of your employees on 

the ships. I am more interested to know, do you have security? 

What is the background? What is their training? What happens 

when there is an incident, either a crime committed on board by 

other people on board, whether or not there are people who go on 

cruise ships just to rob people. That happens wherever there are 

people. Do you have standards as it relates to medical? I think you 

do. But we might need other standards. 

I think an industry that is so popular as your industry, would 

want to even take it a step further, and I think that is what we 

are getting to here, at least what I am getting to here on your industry. Once the camel’s nose gets in the tent, sometimes it gets 

bigger and bigger. We don’t want to get it to that level. You seem 

to be cooperative. We are not here to give you a hard time, but 

there are some incidents that have to be dealt with, and more and 

more there is a problem. 

Another issue I want to ask about too, because I had a personal 

experience, but I am not going to get too much into it. I see that 

because you are so popular and you have to keep getting back and 

forth to your ports, what about the issue with respect to weather? 

I am not talking about hurricanes, nobody is going to go into a hurricane, but the standards when a captain has to make it to a certain port to get there, notwithstanding the fact that it could be one 

of the bumpiest rides that you will ever have in your life? What 

are your standards with respect to having to make your deadline 

to get to the port to pick up the new group and drop the group off? 

Do you have any standards as it relates to weather with respect 

to any safety? 

Mr. CRYE. Safety of life at sea is the ultimate responsibility of 

every captain, and he will not compromise the safety of that vessel 

to meet any schedule whatsoever. That is the responsibility of each 

master on board the ship. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Does he have incentives or deadlines that 

he has to get back to another port on time? 

Mr. CRYE. If it is a matter of safety, those deadlines don’t apply. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Do you call safety when you are maybe 

going through a storm and for over an hour it is almost you are 

thrown out of bed? Is that considered safety or non-safety, or how 

do you define safety, the ship just won’t go over, but unfortunately 

you are going to have to deal with that? I am just asking the question. I am not criticizing. 

Mr. CRYE. Unfortunately, we are talking about the ocean, and occasionally there is significant waves, there are significant weather 

events that occur. Fortunately, today we have pretty effective 

methodology to predict the course of storms, and to avoid those, the 

paths of those storms. But occasionally there will be the event 

where you are transitting through rougher ocean. We do everything 

198

that we can to minimize that from happening, but occasionally it 

happens. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. It is like the airline, the pilot versus the 

captain, the pilot of the airline, and that is their judgment, based 

on weather and radar and things of that nature. 

Let me ask you this, Mr. Chairman. We need, I think, to really 

try to talk a little bit more about standards of a system that is set 

up as far as not—I really applaud you for meeting with the FBI 

and the different groups that you are talking——

Mr. SHAYS. If the gentleman yields on that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. I am uneasy with your description of the purpose of 

those meetings. The purpose of those meetings are basically dealing with security issues, intelligence about criminal people, terrorist concerns and so on, correct? 

Mr. CRYE. In addition we have manifest requirements, automated manifests that must be filed with the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

Department of Homeland Security——

Mr. SHAYS. No, no. Mr. Crye, his question related more about 

getting together to set up new standards I think. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. A standard, and you know, you can market 

this too. It is a marketing tool so people feel secure. I am talking 

about it is great to find out if there is a chain of burglars or if we 

have terrorists that are trying to move in and out or get in through 

different areas. I am talking about basically, in medicine you have 

a standard, accounting you have standards. You also need accountability. I am asking who are your employees? Do we have a standard of certain qualifications that when you are dealing with so 

many people on a ship, that in the event an incident occurs, whatever that might be, that you have the people with the expertise to 

deal with it on the ship, and other than just hiring this person who 

might have been working in one area, now another area. That is 

why a lot of former FBI agents are hired, and that is why former 

police officers are hired. 

We are talking about the security of the people that get on the 

ship that rely on that, and I don’t think you are doing a bad job, 

but I am worried about the trends, and I think that we had better 

evaluate it so that you can keep an industry that a lot of people 

love. Five million people in this country do it every year. 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir. We constantly look at those types of standards and procedures and industry protocols. In addition, I mean, 

we developed our zero tolerance for crime policy in 1999, where all 

incidents of any kind of allegation of crime, would be reported to 

the appropriate authorities, and——

Mr. SHAYS. Excuse me, I have to interrupt here. Hold on just a 

second. Zero tolerance of crime? 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. So if there is someone has lost $7,000 instead of 

$10,000, it will be reported? 

Mr. CRYE. My understanding, yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Your understanding. Isn’t the threshold $10,000? 

Mr. CRYE. The threshold for the FBI to accept the report is 

$10,000. 

199

Mr. SHAYS. Right. So they are not notified if it is less than $10,000. 

Mr. CRYE. The FBI, no, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. So describe to me zero tolerance for someone who had 

$7,000, and they were told by one of your companies that it didn’t 

meet the threshold. 

Mr. CRYE. For reporting to the FBI. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. That doesn’t sound like zero tolerance for crime. 

Mr. CRYE. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t reported, sir. I don’t know 

of this particular circumstance at all. 

Mr. SHAYS. I am sorry to interrupt. 

Mr. CRYE. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t reported to the appropriate law enforcement authority. It may not have been reported to 

the FBI because of their guidelines regarding what they would accept for a report, but that doesn’t mean that it wasn’t reported to 

the appropriate law enforcement authorities. 

Mr. SHAYS. In a letter from Royal Caribbean when they complained about a problem that they had with theft of jewelry for 

$7,000. It was addressed to Ira and Myrtle Leonard, who complained, from Hamden, CT. It then said, ‘‘Dear Guests, As per our 

conversation today, I have explained that we are not required to report alleged thefts with a value less than 10K. Although we genuinely sympathize with you for your loss, we regret we are unable 

to compensate you for your personal items. All claims are evaluated 

according to your passenger ticket contract, which we suggest you 

review for further clarification. If you have not done so already, we 

suggest you consider your claim to your travel or private insurer 

for consideration.’’

It just strikes me that doesn’t sound like zero tolerance. 

Mr. CRYE. Sir, I think that specific case should be taken up for 

us to determine exactly what was done in that circumstance, and 

where Royal Caribbean——

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. Using that specific case, there is an example of setting up the system. It is like managing anything. You 

have a system. You have people who are managers. You hold people accountable. You have audits, that type of thing. But it is about 

a system. 

One of the things I find frustrating in being a Member of Congress sometimes, is that we have these hearings, and then we don’t 

have follow-through. I think this is a case that would benefit your 

industry and also Members of Congress that are looking after people, to really start talking about it, and especially because there 

are a lot of ships that are not American ships—Royal Caribbean is 

one—that if we can set up a standard that may be international. 

I think you need more. You need job descriptions of who is on 

there, what is on there, what happens with the standards. You 

probably have a lot of that now, but I think you need to look at 

it so that we can all feel secure. Sometimes perception becomes reality and we need to deal with this. 

One other thing. 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir. I think we would be pleased to work with 

that. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. I would like if the chairman could have 

staff maybe follow through what we are talking about, Mr. ChairVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00205 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
200

man, and maybe we could do something here that would benefit 

both. 

One other thing. I don’t know if this question has been asked, 

but it is a situation you are going to have to deal with from a public relations point of view, and I just want to ask this question. It 

might have been asked. I am sorry, I had other meetings I had to 

go back and forth to, and maybe you can’t answer the question or 

you have. We have read the report where Mrs. Smith was put off 

the ship. Why wasn’t she given more help and cooperation when 

she was told to go to Turkey? I know the report said that two members of security took her to see the authorities, but basically other 

than, wasn’t given money or anything of that nature. I read the report. If the question has been answered, then that is OK, but I 

would like to know from my perspective what happened, and is 

that something you are looking at, evaluating, bad judgment? What 

happened there? 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, I will answer that. We did discuss this. This was 

information I saw for the first time today. We will take it back and 

go through it. Our understanding was that we did provide a female 

guest relations manager, U.S. consulate, ship’s port agent, all of 

this in an event to make accommodations. And we expressed our 

regret if there was in any way if Mrs. Smith felt insecure or unsafe. It certainly is not our company culture, and it should not have 

happened if it did. 

Mr. RUPPERSBERGER. And if it didn’t, you look at it, and that is 

why we need standards again, certain systems and standards. OK, 

thank you. 

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman. 

The concern I have is the same kind of marketing that goes on 

in Las Vegas that says, what goes on in Las Vegas stays in Las 

Vegas. When I attribute it to your industry, I feel like everything 

on board stays on board the ship, including disclosing bad information. So I am candidly, very suspicious of the statistics that are 

presented. I think there is a disincentive for you to provide statistics, and I have a number of questions that relate to that issue, but 

also just security in general. I am separating the whole concern I 

have about terrorism and how we deal with terrorism and piracy 

and all of that, which I know this industry is working night and 

day to deal with. 

I would like to know, to start, how many security people you usually have on board ship, or if it is a city, if it is a city—maybe, Mr. 

Crye you can start—if it is a city in general and you have 2,000 

guests, you have, what, 1,000 employees? Is it a 2 to 1 ratio? What 

is the ratio of employee? 

Mr. CRYE. It depends, sir, on the type of vessel. If it is a vessel 

that is more mass marketed, the ratio is lower. 

Mr. SHAYS. So what would that be, a mass market? 

Mr. CRYE. It would be 2 to 1, 3 to 1. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK, but you could have——

Mr. CRYE. To more than 1 to 1. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s just take a ship with 2,000 guests, 1,000 employees. Is there a ship like that? 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir. 

201

Mr. SHAYS. How many of them would be security? And then define security to me. 

Mr. CRYE. I can tell you, sir, that under the International Ship 

and Port Facility Security Code, that all of the crew members, all 

1,000 have a security function, and have a certain amount of training and orientation as it relates to security. 

Mr. SHAYS. Is it security though in terms of fire, in terms of having to abandon ship, that kind of security? 

Mr. CRYE. And also security as it relates to securing the vessel 

from different situations, but there is also, under the International 

Ship and Port Facility Security Code, the requirement for a security officer whose sole function is that job, as well as a security 

staff who works for him whose job—him or her. 

Mr. SHAYS. Let’s focus on them then. How many are solely focused on security and how many of them carry weapons? 

Mr. CRYE. To answer that question would potentially compromise 

the security plans. I can certainly answer those questions for you 

candidly——

Mr. SHAYS. I am smiling in a way because if I——

Mr. CRYE. I would be pleased to answer those questions to you 

in a closed session——

Mr. SHAYS. I am smiling because in Darien, CT, I can name you 

how many police officers exist. I don’t think we endanger the people of Darien, CT, when I tell you the number of police officers. It 

is printed in the newspaper. I don’t think it endangers the city. Yet 

this is a city, and so tell me why—don’t tell me the number. Why 

would it endanger to know how many officers, because you don’t 

have enough? 

Mr. CRYE. If you were a terrorist, sir, and as a result of this public record, you said, ‘‘OK, all I have to do is have that many security officers plus five, or that many security officers plus 10 to overcome the—and we can go on and on and on with respect to the defense mechanisms on board the ship, and you can ask me all of 

those questions. And the more of those questions I answer, I’m giving the bad guys a blueprint for exactly how to go about attacking 

that vessel.’’

Mr. SHAYS. I agree with that in one way, or I could say it another way. If you gave me a number that was pretty large, it might 

tell me I would never want to attack your ship, so it could be a 

plus or a minus. If you gave me a low number, yes, it would be 

very tempting, and that is what makes me concerned. If your number was a high number, I don’t think we would endanger the public. I think you would basically say you don’t want to fool around 

with us. 

Mr. CRYE. That’s why, that’s one reason why I told you that 

every crew member on board that vessel has a security function. 

Mr. SHAYS. We will get into that in a private way. 

Mr. CRYE. We’d be pleased to do so, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. I know you will, but I will tell you that my folks have 

gone on cruises, my friends obviously have. I haven’t yet, and want 

to someday when I can get a week. But what I am told is that if 

there are security people around, they are hard to see. So is it your 

practice basically to have most of your people undercover? 

Mr. CRYE. No, sir, it isn’t. 

202

Mr. SHAYS. Do you have some security folks who are clearly just 

security and labeled so? I mean would they look like a police officer 

on board a ship, Mr. Purdy? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. They would have badges on and uniforms, 

and their sole function on board is traditional police type security. 

Mr. SHAYS. And they don’t carry a weapon? 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, we, again, would rather not discuss the measures that they have for their defense, but we’re happy to in a private session. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. How do you secure the security of your guarantee that the employees that you hire are above reproach? Mr. 

Purdy, how do you do that? 

Mr. PURDY. It’s a standard for the industry, I believe, but every 

crew member that we hire has to—we require them as a company 

to get a (c)(1)(D) visa, a seafarer’s visa. That means that the hiring 

partners, besides the background checks that they conduct, also 

send them over to the U.S. consulate in that country to provide 

their information, and then that is vetted through the U.S. State 

Department. We do that whether the ship is actually working in 

a U.S. port, or even a ship that’s just in Europe the whole summer. 

We require all crew members to have a U.S. seafarer’s visa. 

Mr. SHAYS. Who issues that visa? 

Mr. PURDY. Those visas are issued by the U.S. consulates in the 

different countries. We also submit those——

Mr. SHAYS. How does that guarantee that these people are above 

reproach? 

Mr. PURDY. Well, it guarantees that they, that they are not on 

any—that they are vetted by the U.S. Government. We also submit 

all the crew names, along with the passenger names, to the U.S. 

Government for vetting on the ship manifest, sir, each time the 

ship sails. 

Mr. SHAYS. Say that last part. Each time the ship sails, what? 

I am sorry. 

Mr. PURDY. We submit a manifest with all the names and date 

of birth, passport information, and what-have-you, to the U.S. Government, specifically to Customs and Border protection, and to the 

U.S. Coast Guard for analysis. 

Mr. SHAYS. Sir, do you do background checks on all of your employees? 

Mr. PURDY. We don’t do background checks ourselves, but we 

have hiring agents in various parts of the world that are responsible for the background check, and again, we use the (c)(1)(D) visa 

process as a standard so that everybody goes through the U.S. 

screening and vetting process. 

Mr. SHAYS. We will learn how difficult it is to get the visa, but 

I am unclear from your answer as to—what I am hearing you say 

is that you do not do the security checks for your employees. 

Mr. PURDY. My answer is that it’s not centralized from our 

Miami office, sir, but we have requirements on the various hiring 

partners that we have relationships all over the world. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mandigo, tell me what you all do. 

Mr. MANDIGO. Mr. Chairman, we essentially do the same thing, 

that we have manning agencies, hiring partners, as you would call 

them, in different parts of the world. 

203

Mr. SHAYS. Do they get a commission? 

Mr. MANDIGO. They are paid by us for their function, yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Do they get a commission for every employee they 

hire? 

Mr. MANDIGO. I do not know the answer to that question, sir. I 

mean we certainly pay them for their services for providing crew 

for our ships. 

Mr. SHAYS. But you are not aware that they are not paid commission. Mr. Purdy, are they paid a commission for——

Mr. PURDY. I’m not sure of the answer, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Crye. 

Mr. CRYE. I don’t know, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. But anyway, you pay them to find people. 

Mr. MANDIGO. That’s correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SHAYS. And so they have an incentive to find people? 

Mr. MANDIGO. Well, they have an incentive to find people, but we 

set the qualifications as who those people are. They have to have 

certain skills, certain abilities, and they are required to have a 

background check done on those people, and we do conduct audits 

of our hiring partners or our manning agencies periodically to determine if they are complying with our requirements. 

Mr. SHAYS. When you find an employee that you found was not 

properly vetted, what happens? 

Mr. MANDIGO. We would immediately dismiss that person, and 

we would go back to the hiring agency, and if we determine it was 

egregious, that we would change our hiring agency, and we have 

done that before. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Purdy. 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir, that would be our same practice. It’s a 

human resources function to visit the hiring partners throughout 

the world and assess how they’re operating, and conduct the audits 

and review of records. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. 

Mr. CRYE. Sir, also depending upon the nature of the particular 

position that an individual holds on board the vessel, they may be 

subject to additional scrutiny that requires additional background 

checks beyond a hiring background check. 

Mr. SHAYS. The previous panel discussed someone who is missing 

can be missing for a variety of reasons. I stated the ones I thought. 

I would like you, Mr. Mandigo and Mr. Purdy and Mr. Crye, in 

that order, to tell me the potential for why someone is missing. 

Mr. MANDIGO. Mr. Chairman, that over the past 2 years, the 

Carnival Corporation Cruise Ships have carried over 12 million 

passengers. In that time period we have had 6 passengers go missing. None of——

Mr. SHAYS. Six in twelve. 

Mr. MANDIGO. Six missing. Actually, a seventh person that was 

rescued at sea. 

Mr. SHAYS. You said in 12 years? 

Mr. MANDIGO. In 2 years, the last 2 years, six people, three each 

year. In none of those circumstances have we found information to 

indicate that foul play was a factor in those missing persons. 

Mr. SHAYS. I don’t know what that means. In other words, so—

tell me what that means. I will tell you why. If Mr. Smith had fallVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:02 Sep 06, 2006 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00209 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\27923.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: KATIE
204

en overboard and they hadn’t found blood, you would probably say 

no——

Mr. MANDIGO. That is possible, sir. And, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated, in those situations, in some of them there would be information that would indicate that it was potentially a suicide. For instance, that the shoes of the person were lined up very neatly 

alongside the railing, and items in their cabin were neat. There 

may have been a note left behind. So it would indicate the potential that may have been——

Mr. SHAYS. Of those 6, you determined, in the 2-years, why were 

they missing? 

Mr. MANDIGO. That four of them, that we believe we know what 

the circumstances were. Two of them are as yet undetermined. 

Mr. SHAYS. And what were the four circumstances, without details? What were they? 

Mr. MANDIGO. Without going into names or identities, that four 

of those situations, based on all the information available that we 

have seen, that the belief is that they were probable suicides. 

Mr. SHAYS. What I would like is for you to walk through those 

cases with my staff so we can see how you all determined that. It 

would be helpful. 

So none of it was drunkenness. It was all, in your judgment, four 

out of the six was suicides? 

Mr. MANDIGO. Yes. And I’d also add, Mr. Chairman, that all of 

these would have been immediately reported to the FBI for the FBI 

to pursue as they saw appropriate, given the circumstances. 

Mr. SHAYS. What, the four, the four? 

Mr. MANDIGO. All six of them would have been reported as——

Mr. SHAYS. Why? Why would you have reported all six? 

Mr. MANDIGO. It’s a missing person, and it’s standard practice, 

if we have a missing person, to report that to the FBI if it’s a U.S. 

person. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Purdy. 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. Generally the same. I would have the categories——

Mr. SHAYS. Oh, no, how many in 2 years? Give me a number. 

Mr. PURDY. For the 2-years, sir, we have had 4 people, and that’s 

for 29 ships, 7 million passengers during that period. 

Mr. SHAYS. I believe it was Merrian Lynn Carver on your ship, 

one of your ships? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. So she wasn’t reported missing. So how does that 

come into the equation? 

Mr. PURDY. First of all, we’d like to extend our hearts to the 

Carver family. This was a horrible tragedy, and the fact is we 

didn’t realize that she was missing. Our cabin steward did, as all 

our crew members are trained—report something suspicious, that 

this woman had not been using her room. He reported that to the 

supervisor. The supervisor questioned it, went to the computer system to see if she was registered on board. He verified that she was 

on board, and he didn’t think anything else of it, and that was 

where he used extremely poor judgment in not reporting that up 

the chain. 

Mr. SHAYS. So what happened to him? 

205

Mr. PURDY. He was terminated, sir. He was terminated for this. 

Nevertheless, this is an incident that—we regret that we had 

caused this family additional anguish because of the delay in figuring this out. And once we did realize this, after going back and 

forth with the Cambridge detective who was working on this case, 

we ensured that again we notified the FBI, albeit 5 weeks later. 

And since then we’ve taken other steps to ensure this doesn’t happen again. 

This means now we’ve started having our ships having, when 

people disembark at the end of the cruise, also checking out on our 

SeaPass system so we can tell that, yes, in fact, everyone was 

cleared. We also have established in our company an anonymous 

hotline for any employee who has any question about a safety 

issue, security issue, environmental issue that’s not being addressed properly through the on board team. They can call anonymously and that will get fully investigated from our shoreside staff. 

Again, our hearts go out to the family. This is——

Mr. SHAYS. The reason why—you know, rather than your hearts 

going out to the family, which is important for you to say, particularly at this hearing, it would be better if you cooperated with the 

family, and didn’t make them have to seek this information the 

way they sought it, having to spend literally tens of thousands of 

dollars. So your actions would speak more loudly than your statement, frankly, and your actions appear not to support your sorrow. 

Your actions on what you did to your employee, I think, are significant, because Lord knows that employee needed to leave. 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. My understanding is this is under litigation. 

However, despite that, we have provided them with all the information that we have on the case, and the fact is, is there just isn’t 

that much information. She booked the cruise 2 days before, came 

on with very few belongings, and that also contributed to us not realizing that she left. There was no cabin baggage. There was nothing for anybody else to understand that she was in fact missing, 

and we regret that deeply. 

Mr. SHAYS. So the four things that could happen in missing, 

would be what? 

Mr. PURDY. I’m sorry, sir. Accidents, which could happen, a 

homicide which could happen, and a suicide which could happen, 

as far as someone who could go missing. 

Mr. SHAYS. Right. There are two kinds of accidents, accidents 

where someone did something stupid——

Mr. PURDY. Like horseplay, yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. And so it is negligent homicide in that case. When 

someone is drunk, and they are walking outside, how do you protect those people? I mean you do encourage them to drink, and you 

do encourage them to have fun and so on. What is their protection 

if they are really drunk? 

Mr. PURDY. Initially, sir, we protect them by just the construction of the ship. They’re built to be inherently safe. So the rails are 

at a height that it would be very difficult to simply fall over. The 

swimming pools would have nets over them if they weren’t filled 

with water. In every aspect of the ship, there’s safety considerations, because we know that this is the case on board. People are 

in a celebratory mood. It’s the nature of the cruise. 

206

Mr. SHAYS. Why wouldn’t you have cameras at every outside 

area so that you would be able to reconstruct when someone fell 

overboard whether they were pushed, thrown or just jumped? It 

seems to me that would be overall a fairly modest expense, and it 

would seem to me that it would discourage a crime because you 

would be on tape. 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. We do believe CCTV is an effective deterrent as well as a tool for us, and we have——

Mr. SHAYS. Well, why don’t you use it? 

Mr. PURDY [continuing]. Had CCTV systems on our ships for the 

past, really I think, about 10 years. So all our ships have CCTV 

systems, and we are continuously bringing that technology forward. 

Our fleets alone started this year in transforming all of these systems from a regular analog tape system to a digital system, so 

we’re continuously improving the system. 

Mr. SHAYS. But I mean the more I think about it, the more 

amazed I am. I mean you could basically have security, and for terrorism as well. You would basically be able on a screen to see if 

there was any foul play, and you would immediately be able to 

send someone to the area where there may be foul play, or if people 

are getting into an argument, you would be able to go quickly and 

break it up. Mr. Mandigo, why aren’t TV screens, videos, available 

everywhere? 

Mr. MANDIGO. Likewise, as my counterpart, we do have a number of CCTVs on cruise ships, but we do have issues of privacy. 

You’re talking about multiple decks on a ship. You’re talking about 

balconies on many of the cruise ships. 

Mr. SHAYS. That is true. 

Mr. MANDIGO. It would be a challenge, although it could be done. 

Mr. SHAYS. I understand. What you are saying is on a balcony, 

that is a private balcony? 

Mr. MANDIGO. It’s private balconies and you have privacy issues, 

and——

Mr. SHAYS. No, I hear you. 

Mr. MANDIGO. And being new to the cruise industry and being 

on cruise ships, they are very massive, and to put that kind of coverage throughout the ship would be a challenge, but certainly could 

be done. But some of the things though that we do that address 

people for imbibing, drinking, is that our bartenders have training, 

you know, on how to spot people that have been drinking too much. 

They have training on what to do with those people. You know, we 

will escort them back to their cabins. 

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. We are coming to a close here. Let me 

just understand what rules supreme in terms of investigating, and 

who has jurisdiction. One issue is the citizen of the individual involved who may be missing. Let’s just say a crime has been committed and they have been killed. One issue is the port of departure. Another issue is where the ship domiciles. Another issue is 

what flag it is under. Another is who owns it. And another issue 

could be where the ticket was sold. Are there other issues that 

come into play in terms of making this a confusing issue to have 

an investigation? 

Mr. CRYE. Sorry. I hope that I didn’t necessarily mislead you 

with respect to the issues of jurisdiction under international law. 

207

The jurisdiction under international law is based upon territory. 

It’s based upon nationality. It’s based upon protective principles——

Mr. SHAYS. Nationality of the individual? 

Mr. CRYE. Both the individual, as well as a potential perpetrator. 

And certainly generally a ship is considered to be the territory of 

the flag that it flies. However, that jurisdiction may be shared by 

others based upon these other factors. 

From a commercial perspective, which I think I was trying to address earlier, the issue becomes where the ticket was sold, what 

are the rights and responsibilities of the vessel and the passenger 

under the laws of that location. That’s a different issue than the 

issues of jurisdiction under international law. There’s a commercial 

contract that is issued as it relates to the rights and responsibilities of that vessel, of that individual under U.S. commercial law 

if that ticket is sold in the United States. 

Mr. SHAYS. Well, I am wrestling with a lot of different factors 

that come into play, and I don’t know which ones carry the greatest 

weight. For instance, I am just trying to determine, you represent 

companies that service basically 90 percent of the cruise trade; is 

that correct? 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir, in the United States; 90 percent of North 

American. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So when a ship is leaving port—I guess what I 

am trying to determine is—not that you would want it, but you are 

going to give me an honest answer—what capabilities does the Federal Government, Congress, the White House have over your industry? What basic legal authority do we have over this industry to 

put forth, for instance, I am not comfortable with voluntary submission of statistics. I want to require it. I don’t want there to be 

any doubt. I don’t want there to be any ambivalence, ambiguity. I 

don’t want there to be any, ‘‘Well, we did not do it, and we are 

sorry, and we fired the employee.’’ I want to make sure it happens, 

and then I want to be able to trust those statistics. What capabilities——

Mr. CRYE. Are you thinking of gathering statistics for any ship, 

anywhere that carries U.S. passengers? 

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. 

Mr. CRYE. I don’t think that you can compel, for instance, a 

Greek ship that operates only in Greece that might sell a ticket in 

the United States, that a U.S. citizen goes and flies to Greece to 

get aboard that ship. And that ship, or the operating company that 

operates that ship, has no nexus to the United States other than 

a U.S. citizen chose to go to Greece to go on board that vessel. 

Another analogy might be a ferryboat. It’s a passenger vessel operating in the Baltic that carries passengers between Norway and 

Switzerland—or Norway and Sweden. That is a vessel, and the 

voyage has to nexus to the United States. 

Mr. SHAYS. But basically the folks that are part of your organization do come under our authority, North America. 

Mr. CRYE. To varying extents. Some operate routinely from the 

United States. Some operate with the majority of American passengers. Some operate on large international voyages that are 

around-the-world voyages, that infrequently, if ever, come to the 

208

United States. Others are primarily European operators who may 

come and sail from the Dominican Republic in the winter. Might 

that be a sufficient nexus to obtain the type of statistics that you’re 

describing? There are varying degrees of nexus to the United 

States, is the point I’m trying to make. I’m not trying to be uncooperative. 

Mr. SHAYS. No, I understand. 

Mr. CRYE. I’m just trying to tell you——

Mr. SHAYS. You gave me an honest answer to a question and I 

appreciate it. 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. I think that the way we are going to leave it is that 

we will have you meet with the staff to talk about security, the 

number of folks that you have on board. Do you have a jail on 

board your ships? 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, for Royal Caribbean and Celebrity, we have 

what would be an isolation room on board the ships. On some of 

the older ships that do not have that, we would utilize a cabin with 

a guard posted at the front. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. But what we will do is we will try to understand 

how you secure your vessels both from terrorists as well as how 

you try to maintain law and order. And I am comfortable doing 

that in closed doors. But, frankly, we will do it just with staff. I 

think that would be sufficient. 

We are——

Mr. CRYE. Sir, could I give you the industry-wide statistics? 

Mr. SHAYS. Sure. 

Mr. CRYE. Our membership, we surveyed our membership for the 

number of missing persons who went overboard in the past 2 years. 

We obtained a fair and accurate report that 13 people have gone 

overboard, or are missing over the past 2 years, and during that 

period we carried almost 20 million people, so that is a ratio of 

something more than 1 in a million, something more like 1 in 1.4 

million. 

Mr. SHAYS. So it is a million different passengers but only for a 

week or two. In other words, it is a million passengers, but only 

for a week or two, correct, that you carried them? In other words, 

you don’t have—I am saying the obvious, I am just trying to make 

sure we don’t get overly impressed with that statistic, 20 million 

people. 

Mr. CRYE. We have approximately 200,000 berths on board our 

ships. So if you equated those statistics to a town of 200,000, then 

you would be comparing apples to apples. 

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. That is my point. I don’t want to compare it to a community of 20 million or a State of 20 million. I really need to compare it to a community of 200,000. 

Mr. CRYE. Yes. 

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. And that these statistics were voluntarily provided. 

Mr. CRYE. By our membership to the trade association. 

Mr. SHAYS. Did everyone participate? 

Mr. CRYE. Yes, sir. 

209

Mr. SHAYS. What I would like is if you would give those statistics 

for each of the cruise lines to my staff, if you would provide that, 

so in other words, we will know how many from each cruise line. 

Was there a disproportionate amount in one cruise line versus 

another? 

Mr. CRYE. You’ve heard the majority of the statistics reported by 

the two cruise lines that are here present today. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. But at any rate, we just want a breakdown of 

the 13, and you don’t have to give it right now, but we will want 

it later. We want the 13 and what cruise ships they were. Actually, 

why don’t you give it to us right now? What were they; 13 missing, 

and what were the cruise ships that the 13 were missing? 

Mr. CRYE. You’ve heard from Carnival Cruise Lines. 

Mr. SHAYS. Carnival was again how many, six? 

Mr. MANDIGO. We had six for all the brands within Carnival. 

Mr. SHAYS. Over 2 years, right. 

And, Mr. Purdy. 

Mr. PURDY. Four, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. So we have three left. It is not a trick question. We 

just want to get it on the record. Thank you. 

Mr. CRYE. The other four—three we would like to provide to you. 

Mr. SHAYS. Would you do that? 

Mr. CRYE. Because——

Mr. SHAYS. Let me explain why, so that later on if someone contacts us and says my brother or sister was missing on this particular cruise ship, it will just reinforce and give us faith in the statistics you are providing. So that is why it would be helpful to 

have. 

Mr. CRYE. Thank you, sir. We will be pleased to provide that for 

you. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK, thank you. 

Is there any question that we should have asked you, any question you prepared that you would like to put on the record? Any 

question we should have asked you that we didn’t? You can ask 

yourself the question and then answer it. I, frankly, learn a lot 

from the questions that you may think we should have asked that 

we didn’t, a lot. So is there anything that you would like to ask 

yourself or just put on the record? 

Mr. MANDIGO. At risk, Mr. Chairman, I would add that, 27 years 

in the FBI, that we always struggled over jurisdiction, and I was 

very happy in the cruise industry that we solved that problem fairly easily by simply taking the position that if it was a serious 

crime, we would report it, and then we did not have to worry about 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. SHAYS. You report it to whom? 

Mr. MANDIGO. To the FBI if it was a serious crime. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Purdy, any point that you want to put on the 

record? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. I would just like to clarify two points on the 

George Smith case that have been widely misreported. 

Mr. SHAYS. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. PURDY. Those points being our security, or our guest relations staff received the loud noise call at 4 a.m. It was not a call 

talking about a fight or any kind of violence. It was loud noise, 

210

sounded like partying sounds. Our security responded. Once they 

were there, they knocked on the door. The situation was, it was 

quiet, and that’s their procedure for handling a noise complaint. 

Had there been a report of a fight, any kind of violence, our procedure is that they go in and physically verify that the occupants 

are OK. So I want to clarify that point. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

Mr. PURDY. The second point is that the overhang, which has 

been reported as being cleaned immediately, was secured along 

with the cabin. The Turkish authorities came on board, after, 

again, we had notified the FBI as well. FBI was in Kusadasi at the 

time. The Turkish authorities conducted their forensic investigation, and they released both the overhang and the cabin to us for 

cleaning at approximately 6 p.m. They also released the ship to us 

to sail at 7 p.m. The overhang was cleaned at that time. However, 

we kept the cabin secured for the following 6 days while we were 

in communication with the FBI. 

Mr. SHAYS. Secured, but any of your own security people could 

walk in——

Mr. PURDY. Meaning sealed off and nobody allowed to go in, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. So even your security people couldn’t go in? 

Mr. PURDY. Yes. I think our security people could go in, sir, but 

I would have to check whether anybody did, but it was secured. 

Mr. SHAYS. This raises an interesting point for me at least. I 

don’t have a sense of how you involved the FBI. I mean, would it 

have been wise to wait for the FBI to come and let them do what 

they——

Mr. PURDY. Sir, we were in communications with the FBI, and 

at that point there’s a lot of diplomatic channels that we’re not a 

party to that have to happen for that to happen——

Mr. SHAYS. Wait a second. There is no noise from the audience 

on this issue. This is a hearing. 

But what I would like to know is this. We are talking about 

American citizens. I will tell you I have a lot more faith—with no 

disrespect to the Turkish Government. I have met so many fine 

people in Turkey and government officials, but for them to have released it, and then you destroyed, frankly, some of the evidence 

once the Turks had basically allowed you. When does the FBI 

come? Had the FBI been on board the ship to check it out? 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, we have been asked not to discuss the FBI’s investigation. 

Mr. SHAYS. That is fair enough. I am not going to ask you other 

than this, and let me ask you a general question. I am losing a 

sense of the significance of the FBI if you would destroy evidence 

before the FBI had given you approval. If you are telling me the 

FBI had given you approval, I would say, well, I have a comfort 

level with that. You are telling me the Turkish Government told 

you you could take care of it, then I have a problem with that. 

Mr. PURDY. Sir, we were in communications with the FBI, and 

they made no request to take any other actions at that time. 

Mr. SHAYS. OK. So let me just ask in general. Forget the Smith 

case. 

Mr. PURDY. Yes, sir. 

211

Mr. SHAYS. How do you involve the FBI if you are overseas in 

Greece? Do you get them from the Greek Embassy? I mean we 

have FBI agents—where do they come from? 

Mr. PURDY. If we have an allegation, we report it both through 

the Miami office to the FBI——

Mr. SHAYS. So they meet you in the next port or do they——

Mr. PURDY [continuing]. As well as the U.S. consulate. 

Mr. SHAYS. You notify them. Help me out. Anybody can answer 

this. I should ask them. Does the FBI fly to your ship in a helicopter and immediately take control, or do they wait till you come 

to the next port? Do they just talk to you on the phone? What do 

they do? 

Mr. PURDY. Ultimately they handle it on a case-by-case basis. On 

the case which happened over the weekend, the FBI required a request from the Canadian authorities to step in upon our notification, which they did, and they have started an investigation. 

Mr. SHAYS. What does step in mean, that they got involved or 

they landed on the ship? 

Mr. PURDY. Excuse me, sir? 

Mr. SHAYS. Getting involved isn’t helping me understand. I want 

to know what getting involved means. Did they actually take control of whatever room that the needed to get, or place that they 

needed? 

Mr. CRYE. Perhaps I could try to address that, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Were they personally there? Mr. Crye. 

Mr. CRYE. I’m not speaking of the George Smith case, per se. 

Mr. SHAYS. No, I know that. 

Mr. CRYE. I am talking about the different authorities that each 

arguably have jurisdiction, different countries. Bahamas might 

have jurisdiction. Greece might have jurisdiction. Turkey might 

have jurisdiction. And the United States might have jurisdiction. In 

the sorting of that out to determine who is the lead and who is taking control, there may be a lapse before the United States decided 

that it wants to be in the lead on the investigation. If that is the 

case, then the authorities of another government would be in the 

lead, and the FBI might be consulted with about whether they 

agree to release the potential crime scene, or they might not be. If 

Turkey says, ‘‘We are in control,’’ and the FBI accedes to that control, and Turkey allows the release of the vessel, that is solely 

Turkish law enforcement authority’s decision. And in fact, much 

has been made today about the Turkish officials——

Mr. SHAYS. Just suspend a second. Just so you don’t go on to a 

new thought, keep your thought. The issue, I can understand the 

Turkish authorities saying you can wash the blood off, but I don’t 

understand why you have to, and I could understand why you 

might want to leave it there until American authorities had a 

chance to look at it. So their saying you can doesn’t mean you had 

to. That is the only issue. And I am trying to understand what your 

policy is. I would like to think your policy would be—and forget the 

Smith case. I have specifically not asked the FBI anything about 

the Smith case. I haven’t even asked the families about the FBI 

and the Smith case because—I have spoken to the families, but I 

haven’t asked them about anything with the FBI, because, frankly, 

212

I don’t want to know. I want to be able to ask my questions and 

not have to know that. 

What I would like to know is the policy of the shipping industry. 

What I am hearing you saying, Mr. Crye—and I am not trying to 

interrupt you, but I just want to make sure you are hearing me—

what I am hearing you say is the FBI may be predominant or not. 

Being predominant or not doesn’t necessarily mean that you should 

destroy evidence until the FBI, who may take a secondary role, has 

a chance to look at it, and I am just wanting to know if an America 

carrier, basically a company that caters mostly to Americans, if 

they are going to give a little benefit of the doubt to the FBI. That 

is kind of where I am at. 

Mr. CRYE. I would think that each cruise line, if the FBI exercised their prerogative and said, ‘‘We don’t care what the Turkish 

authorities have done, we want you to do this,’’ that each one of 

our cruise lines will cooperate fully with that——

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Purdy, is that true? 

Mr. PURDY. Absolutely, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Mandigo. 

Mr. MANDIGO. Absolutely. I am aware of no instance where the 

FBI has been denied full access at their request, or for that matter 

where they have been on board, if it has been necessary to delay 

the ship, the ship has been delayed. 

Mr. SHAYS. Anything else you want to put on the record, Mr. 

Crye? 

Mr. CRYE. The second part of that, sir, is that I am unaware of 

any instance when a flag state interfered with the exercise of U.S. 

jurisdiction on board a cruise ship when a U.S. citizen was involved. 

The thought that I wanted to finish earlier, was under the port 

State control authority. If the Turks had an active investigation 

and they wanted to detain that ship or lock that ship down, or prevent that ship from departing, they certainly had the authority to 

do so if that was their wish. What the Turks did in this circumstance, as I understand it, based upon what Mr. Purdy just testified to, was released the ship back to the master to depart. There 

was no commercial decision involved. The Turks had said, ‘‘We 

have completed our investigation of that awning and that cabin.’’

Mr. SHAYS. But they did not, I don’t think—well, never mind, because I don’t really know the issues involved. I won’t speculate. 

What leaves me uncomfortable is that I could be on a cruise ship 

where a murder may have been committed, and I may be off to a 

new port with a murderer on board. That doesn’t leave me very 

comfortable. Forgetting whatever happened, obviously, the tragedy 

that happened with the Smiths, if a murder was committed, if it 

was done by someone who was staff or someone, a guest still on 

board, you still have the murderer on board. I am not quite sure 

what the solution is——

Mr. CRYE. The policy of the industry is to fully cooperate. If the 

Turks had chosen to stay on board and sail with the ship because 

they had suspicions, they could have done so, and we would have 

been more than welcoming. If the FBI had chosen to go board that 

ship that day—and there was an FBI agent at the consulate—if 

they had chosen to go aboard that ship that day and exercise their 

213

jurisdiction, the cruise line would have been more than willing to 

accommodate them. 

Mr. SHAYS. So bottom line, based on the statistics we have, we 

have 13 missing folks in the last 2 years in a city ultimately year 

long of about 20,000——

Mr. CRYE. 200,000. 

Mr. SHAYS. 200,000 people. And your point to me would be that 

would be a comparable statistic pretty much in the general public. 

Mr. CRYE. I think that various cities in this country measure statistics very variably also, because you certainly have locations 

throughout the United States where tourism is a very big factor 

also, just as they are on a cruise ship where visits of a certain period of time are measured. If you are measuring 52 weeks a year, 

full time, how many people, then you’re probably comparing to a 

city of 200,000. 

Mr. SHAYS. Fair enough. 

Mr. CRYE. Roughly, for the North American cruise market and 

our membership. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you. 

This will be continued. We appreciate your cooperation. We will 

make sure we sit down with you on the statistics of your security, 

and I would love it if you, Mr. Crye—I would appreciate, if you, Mr. 

Crye, Mr. Purdy and Mr. Mandigo, would look at the statements 

of the families that have been victimized and have suffered loss to 

see if there is anything that you should be reconsidering about 

your policies or about particular cases and deal with it appropriately. That would be appreciated. 

Mr. CRYE. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SHAYS. Thank you all very much. You have been very excellent witnesses and I appreciate it. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 6:18 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[The prepared statements of Hon. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Hon. 

John L. Mica follow:]

214


27923.010
215


27923.011
216

Æ


27923.012