    [House Hearing, 109 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY II: LAW ENFORCEMENT, PASSENGER SECURITY
                   AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION ON CRUISE SHIPS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                      EMERGING THREATS, AND INTERNATIONAL
                                   RELATIONS

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 7, 2006

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 109-154

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

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

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    28-532                      WASHINGTON : 2006
    _____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    CHRIS CANNON, Utah                   WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       DIANE E. WATSON, California
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia        ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina       Columbia
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania                    ------
    VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina        BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio                       (Independent)
    ------ ------

                          David Marin, Staff Director
                           Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
              Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

    Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International
                                   Relations

                    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
    KENNY MARCHANT, Texas                DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  TOM LANTOS, California
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
    TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania    LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
    MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio              STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
    JON C. PORTER, Nevada                BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
    CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania

                                   Ex Officio

    TOM DAVIS, Virginia                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
                Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
                  R. Nicholas Palarino, Senior Policy Analyst
                            Robert A. Briggs, Clerk
                 Andrew Su, Minority Professional Staff Member

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on March 7, 2006....................................     1
    Statement of:
        Carver, Kendall, Phoenix, AZ; Son Michael Pham, Bellevue, WA;
          Deborah Shaffer, Tucson, AZ; Janet Kelly, Cottonwood, AZ;
          Ira Leonard, Hamden, CT; and Brian Mulvaney, Miami, FL.....    30
            Carver, Kendall..........................................    30
            Kelly, Janet.............................................    63
            Leonard, Ira.............................................    69
            Mulvaney, Brian..........................................   117
            Pham, Son Michael........................................    49
            Shaffer, Deborah.........................................    56
        Mandigo, Charley, director, Fleet Security, Holland America
          Line; and Captain William S. Wright, senior vice president,
          Marine Operations, Royal Caribbean International,
          accompanied by James Fox, Northeastern University, the
          Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice................   218
            Mandigo, Charley.........................................   218
            Wright, Captain William S................................   224
        Rivkind, Brett, Rivkind Pedraza & Margulies, P.A.; Ronald J.
          Gorsline, owner, Secure Ocean Service, LLC; and Lawrence W.
          Kaye, senior partner, Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP...........   148
            Gorsline, Ronald J.......................................   162
            Kaye, Lawrence W.........................................   180
            Rivkind, Brett...........................................   148
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Carver, Kendall, Phoenix, AZ, prepared statement of..........    34
        Fox, James, Northeastern University, the Lipman Family
          Professor of Criminal Justice, information concerning crime
          aboard cruise ships........................................   251
        Gorsline, Ronald J., owner, Secure Ocean Service, LLC,
          prepared statement of......................................   166
        Hastings, Hon. Alcee, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Florida, prepared statement of....................    27
        Kaye, Lawrence W., senior partner, Kaye, Rose & Partners, LLP
          , prepared statement of....................................   183
        Kelly, Janet, Cottonwood, AZ, prepared statement of..........    66
        Kucinich, Hon. Dennis J., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Ohio:
            Information concerning Royal Caribbean Cruises...........   244
            Prepared statement of....................................     8
        Leonard, Ira, Hamden, CT, prepared statement of..............    72
        Mulvaney, Brian, Miami, FL:
            Photograph...............................................   146
            Prepared statement of....................................   119
        Pham, Son Michael, Bellevue, WA, prepared statement of.......    52
        Rivkind, Brett, Rivkind Pedraza & Margulies, P.A.............   151
        Shaffer, Deborah, Tucson, AZ, prepared statement of..........    59
        Shays, Hon. Christopher, a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Connecticut:
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
            Prepared statement of Terry L. Dale......................    16
            Responses to questions...................................   220
        Wright, Captain William S., senior vice president, Marine
          Operations, Royal Caribbean International, prepared
          statement of...............................................   227

    INTERNATIONAL MARITIME SECURITY II: LAW ENFORCEMENT, PASSENGER SECURITY
                   AND INCIDENT INVESTIGATION ON CRUISE SHIPS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 7, 2006

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
                  Threats, and International Relations,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher
    Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Shays, Davis, Duncan, Mica,
    Kucinich, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Lynch.
        Staff present: Lawrence Halloran, staff director and
    counsel; R. Nicholas Palarino, senior policy analyst; Robert A.
    Briggs, analyst; Andrew Su, minority professional staff member;
    and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
        Mr. Shays. Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the
    Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
    International Relations hearing entitled, ``International
    Maritime Security II: Law Enforcement, Passenger Security and
    Incident Investigation on Cruise Ships'' is called to order.
        Today, we continue our examination of the intricate web of
    treaties, laws, regulations, and industrial practices intended
    to protect lives, rights, and property in the maritime realm.
    As new threats against American citizens and American interests
    emerge in the post-September 11th era, we ask how effectively
    that legal umbrella protects the lives, rights, and property of
    those traveling in international waters.
        As we will hear in testimony today, the answer too often
    depends upon an unpredictable combination of facts,
    circumstance, and happenstance that may or may not mean the
    protections of U.S. laws are available to those in peril on the
    sea. The fate of those gone missing or the rights of those
    against whom a crime has been committed may be determined by
    the nationality of those involved, the ship's national
    registry, or its exact location at the time of the incident.
        Good luck to passengers wishing to understand their rights
    at sea. Even attorneys find it difficult to navigate the
    complex jurisdictional boundaries, statutory definitions,
    treaty provisions, maritime traditions, and fine-print
    liability disclaimers. Even when the law is clear, the
    effective reach of U.S. authority depends on the willingness
    and ability of cruise ship operators to make security a visible
    priority, recognize and report incidents, preserve evidence,
    and conduct thorough onboard investigations.
        Once cast adrift from the familiar moorings of U.S. laws
    and law enforcement, security personnel abroad these floating
    resorts become the only law to which passengers can look for
    help and protection. Are they trained and equipped to provide
    the security passengers have a right to expect? For those
    waiting back on shore, any effort to determine what has
    happened to a friend or relative can also face daunting legal
    and corporate hurdles. A business built on the premise of
    pleasure-filled conveyance has little incentive to inform third
    parties when the trip goes wrong. Time, distance, and legal
    uncertainties work to keep worried survivors at arm's length.
    Some portray it as a stiff arm at bat, extended in the interest
    of denying, delaying, or discounting information about the
    inherent risks of sea travel.
        Unlike shore-bound contracts for accommodation, the pact
    between cruise lines and their passengers should be read to
    include a duty to preserve evidence and provide information
    about the fate of those, however few, who have come to harm in
    isolated, unforgiving ocean environs.
        After our previous hearing on these issues, the
    subcommittee requested information on reports of crimes and
    missing persons from cruise ship operators. The information
    received so far suggests cruise travel may be statistically
    safe in terms of the number of serious incidents reported by
    the total number of passengers carried in any given year. But
    we look to our witnesses to put those numbers in context so the
    subcommittee and the traveling public can make informed
    judgments about the relative security of an ocean voyage.
        Today, we will hear from three panels of witnesses: cruise
    passengers and family members, maritime security experts, and
    cruise line operators. Welcome to all our witnesses. We look
    forward to their testimony.
        At this time the Chair would want to note that the chairman
    of the full committee is in attendance, and we will call on him
    after we call on the ranking member, Mr. Kucinich.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Christopher Shays follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.002

        Mr. Kucinich. I want to thank the chairman.
        Out of respect for the Chair being here, I would be happy
    to yield to the Chair of the full committee.
        Chairman Tom Davis. I will just be brief. Mr. Shays, thank
    you.
        I want to thank Mr. Shays for holding this hearing. It is a
    continuation of the important focus on the security of American
    citizens wherever they are in the world.
        This hearing is significant because cruises are an ever
    more popular vacation choice for American families, and
    ensuring traveler safety should be a priority for all of us.
        I am not an expert on the industry. I know there have been
    some very high-profile incidents aboard cruise ships in recent
    months, and I think if there is reason to believe safety and
    security are being shortchanged, we need to understand that. We
    also need to understand the notification procedures, which is
    one of the shortcomings we have. In spite of some of the good
    news--and some of the good news is that this industry is built
    on customer service. I have seen statistics showing that in
    2005 approximately 55 percent of all passengers were repeat
    guests. So a lot of people appear satisfied with their
    experience as well.
        Now, this subcommittee has spent a lot of hours looking
    into the industry, and I want to commend Chairman Shays and his
    staff for these efforts. I think that sunshine is the best
    disinfectant. What has emerged, we get a picture of an industry
    that is conscious of its public images, its understanding that
    customer service is its lifeblood. They are grasping the need
    to cooperate with a large number of U.S. Government agencies in
    the performance of its service.
        The data do show, as the chairman noted in his remarks,
    that cruise ships are relatively safe places to be, for the
    most part. According to FBI stats reported at the December
    subcommittee hearing, the FBI opened 305 cases of crime on the
    high seas over the past 5 years, during which time there were
    40 million cruise ship passengers. If those numbers are right,
    that is pretty good odds of a safe voyage, certainly a lot
    safer than a lot of counties and cities across the country.
        But I know one thing. One concern about these statistics is
    that many crimes may not be reported, and I hope that is
    something that this subcommittee is looking at as well.
        Two thousand people are reported missing every day in the
    United States. In contrast, over the past 2 years, the
    equivalent of one person per one million passengers went
    missing on a cruise ship, which is less than the national rate.
    A cruise ship is regulated by both the Federal and State
    governments, and criminal offenses on board ships, regardless
    of their nation of registry, are expressly subject to U.S.
    jurisdictions when committed by or against an American.
        Having said this, this is an industry that is not used to
    visible consumer complaints, and as the industry continues to
    grow, they will need to find a more uniform standardized
    security standard. No loss of life or crime is ever acceptable,
    and I understand the anger and the frustration of crime victims
    and their families and loved ones having difficulty pulling
    information out. I hope that the industry will address some of
    the issues that are highlighted today.
        There are compelling questions to be asked, including how
    conflicts and overlaps between domestic law and international
    treaties affect our ability to monitor and enforce criminal
    conduct at sea. I look forward to working with the subcommittee
    to ensure the security of our citizens as they take cruises and
    we try to maintain better reporting to loved ones and others
    who are having difficulty getting information.
        I want to thank Mr. Shays for his important oversight.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Shays. I thank the chairman very much, and at this time
    the Chair would recognize Mr. Kucinich and thank him for
    yielding to the chairman.
        Mr. Kucinich. Of course.
        Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I want to say that
    immediately after my statement, I have to go to the floor of
    the House to enter a statement in opposition to the PATRIOT Act
    authorization, and then I will return.
        Mr. Shays. I think I would like to keep you here.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Good afternoon and thank you to the witnesses for appearing
    today. I know it is extremely difficult for some of our
    panelists today to relate the tragic experiences of their loved
    ones, but I hope that your testimony will help us avoid future
    tragedies aboard cruise ships. Each year, some 10 million
    passengers take trips aboard the 300 large cruise ships that
    comprise the worldwide cruise ship fleets. These trips generate
    tens of billions of dollars in leisure spending, and more than
    half of these passengers embark from North American ports.
        Twelve companies account for the majority of cruise ship
    activity in the United States, but two companies--Carnival
    Corp. and Royal Caribbean--dominate the U.S. market. Carnival
    owns 79 ships and has a dozen more in the pipeline. Royal
    Caribbean has 19 ships. Most of these vessels sail under
    foreign flags and do not have to comply with U.S. labor,
    environmental, and other regulations.
        Many Americans embark on a cruise as a romantic honeymoon
    or on a long-needed family vacation, hoping to travel to exotic
    destinations and enjoy the many amenities these cruise ships
    have to offer. They are offered almost limitless amounts of
    food and entertainment. Alcohol is plentiful and easily
    accessible. It is truly a 24-hour party atmosphere on board the
    ships. Yet instead of relaxing and enjoying their vacation,
    this subcommittee has heard of a disturbing trend: a growing
    number of passengers disappearing while on board these cruise
    ships, with little or no attempts to search and rescue them by
    the ship's crew and security officers.
        At our December hearing, the subcommittee heard from Mrs.
    Jennifer Hagel-Smith, the widow of George Smith, who went
    missing during their honeymoon voyage to the Mediterranean.
    Publicity about their case has allowed numerous others to come
    forward and relate their cruise ship horror stories. Recently,
    individuals affected by cruise ship crimes formed the
    International Cruise Victims Organization as a support network
    and to give a voice to their cause. What they want simply is
    the truth, and that is the same thing that this congressional
    subcommittee wants. They and we want to know that everything
    that could have possibly been done to help their families to
    search and care for their loved ones was done by the cruise
    companies. They want peace of mind and closure to the terrible
    tragedies. But they cannot get a straight answer from those
    companies.
        According to data submitted to the subcommittee by the
    cruise industry--and, you know, they are not officially
    required yet to be reporting to law enforcement agencies--24
    passengers have gone missing aboard cruise ships in the past 3
    years. This subcommittee knows of at least 178 reports of
    sexual assaults, thefts, and hosts of other crimes--not exactly
    the ``Love Boat.''
        However, as the chairman has stated, the lack of
    statistical data on the number of crimes and incidents aboard
    cruise ships which was not disclosed until two congressional
    subcommittees demanded them and the reliability of that data
    leads Congress to suspect that the whole truth is not being
    told. We want to know the truth about individual cases. We want
    to know the truth about the adequacy of training of crew
    members and about the procedures used by security officers, and
    we want to know the truth about the general conduct and
    screening of crew and security officers aboard these ships.
        Do these cruise companies care more about the safety of
    their passengers or their bottom line? Is it more important to
    make sure missing passengers are found or more urgent for the
    ship to reach the next port?
        It seems to me that the latter is more important for these
    cruise ship lines. I hope today's hearing will help answer some
    of those questions.
        I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman, by pointing out that I am
    in strong support of greater Federal regulation over the cruise
    line industry and, in particular, we need key requirements for
    reporting incidents aboard cruise ships. There needs to be
    oversight on training, conduct, and conditions of crew workers
    and security officers and accountability to passengers to
    report such incidents.
        I want to thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank
    you for your leadership on this issue, and I hope that these
    hearings will help cruise ship victims and their families
    understand what went wrong and what happened aboard these
    ships. We should do everything in our power to help them heal
    their wounds.
        Again, thank you, and, again, thank you to the witnesses
    for being here today.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Dennis J. Kucinich
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.007

        Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman.
        At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    certainly I have expressed my great respect and admiration for
    you many times in here, and I will say that again because I
    think you are one of the finest chairmen that this Congress
    has, and I appreciate the fact that you are presiding over a
    very thorough look at this.
        I expressed my concern the last time we had a hearing about
    this that we sometimes legislate based more on what is on the
    24-hour news channels than what we actually should be
    legislating on, and it is unfortunate. I wish it was not this
    way. You know, there are thousands of horrible, terrible
    tragedies happening to people every day in this country. And
    can we prevent all those? I wish we could. We cannot. Should we
    try to? We should, as much as we can.
        I hope that I am a better Member of Congress now than I was
    5 years ago, and I hope that I am fortunate enough to be here 5
    years from now and better then than I am now, because
    everybody, whatever their job is, if they lose the desire to
    improve and get better, it is sad for them and it is sad for
    the people for whom they work. I hope the cruise line industry
    continually tries to do more and better in regard to safety and
    security of its passengers.
        Having said all that, I mentioned some of this the last
    time we had this hearing. People are far, far safer on these
    cruise lines than they are in any city or even in any small
    town in America. The statistics that Chairman Davis mentioned,
    I mean, 10 million passengers a year, 20 million passengers in
    a 2-year time period, and there were 13 that went missing in
    that 2-year period, 6 or 7 a year. One alleged sexual assault
    per 100,000 passengers. You are 100 times more likely to be
    sexually assaulted in a city or town in this country.
        So, we need to keep these things in mind as we go through
    this. Does that lessen what happened to the victims that have
    had bad things happen to them on these cruise lines? No, it
    does not lessen it. Those are terrible things and we all
    sympathize with that. But if we overreact and overregulate, I
    mean, we could put so many regulations and rules and red tape
    in effect that we make it where only extremely wealthy people
    can take cruises. And I certainly do not think we want to do
    that. I think in all these things we need to have some balance,
    and I think that is what this hearing is trying to achieve.
        And so I thank you very much for calling this hearing and
    for letting me be here. Thank you.
        Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman very much.
        At this time the Chair would recognize Mr. Ruppersberger.
        Mr. Ruppersberger. Mr. Chairman, again, thank you for
    having this hearing, the second hearing. Maritime security is a
    very complex issue. I am familiar with maritime security. I
    represent the Port of Baltimore and also am co-Chair of the
    Port Security Caucus, and we are dealing with issues of port
    security, the Dubai issues; more importantly, resources that we
    put into security.
        I really did not get involved with this issue until we had
    the first hearing, but I think it is a very important issue.
    And one of the reasons it is an important issue is that we have
    many Americans that like to go on cruises because cruises are
    fun, they are affordable. And I think that these hearings, even
    though I am sure the industry does not like it, should be a
    wake-up call on looking at your system, making sure that you
    are doing things the right way.
        You have had a good situation, but if you do not re-
    evaluate and make the decisions and the changes that are
    necessary for good security--and it is not always what you
    think. It is what is being perceived, and perception can hurt
    any industry.
        Now, we discussed different issues in the last hearing.
    There were questions that had been raised and questions that
    have not been answered, what laws apply in what situations. The
    FBI and the Coast Guard share the burden of enforcing maritime
    jurisdiction, but who takes the lead? Who is ultimately
    responsible? And I guess we did not answer these questions in
    December. Hopefully we can move forward and help the industry
    where we need to go, because we do not need to overregulate,
    but we do not need to underregulate either. We need to get that
    check, get that balance so that the cruise industry can go
    forward and Americans can have fun but feel safe.
        One question I asked in the hearing was: Do cruise ship
    deadlines create a threat? Do stringent deadlines force ships
    to travel into storms or unsafe places?
        Just to give a personal story, my wife and I went on a
    cruise, and probably will not go on another cruise. We were
    really knocked out of bed because of bad conditions. I
    understand that happens. But, when you have those situations,
    you wonder why you were put in that situation and whether it
    could be avoided. Probably because a ship has to get back to
    port where there are 3,000 people waiting. How you solve that,
    that is up to the industry. But these are things that occur
    occasionally.
        I would be more concerned, though, not about a bad
    experience but a life-and-death experience when it really is
    something serious. How does the industry make a determination?
    Is it the captain's point of view? Do you have the proper
    radar? Are you told, like airline pilots, where to go and to
    avoid storms? Those type of issues.
        Now, the International Council of Cruise Lines wrote
    following up on my question about having deadlines and having
    to go to certain ports and keeping tight schedules. And I
    appreciate the letter and acknowledge that the National
    Transportation Safety Board upholds the cruise line practices
    as prudent. Still, the larger problem continues to be who is in
    charge, what is the system in place to protect the citizens of
    our country. And our country, not only within the port, within
    the U.S. jurisdiction, but as we know from the previous
    hearing, problems that we had when you are in another country,
    how you are treated. It seems to me that once you are on a
    cruise ship and you enter, you go on the cruise ship from the
    United States of America, you should be looked after and
    protected all the way through that process.
        Now, again, in fairness to the cruise ship industry, the
    Coast Guard has said maritime travel is, arguably, among the
    safest modes of transportation available. The International
    Council of Cruise Lines has established safety standards, but
    who enforces them? High standards are not the end of the story.
    We must continually work to improve.
        It is critical that we solve this problem, establish rules,
    and procedures so all agencies involved in security can and
    know how they are supposed to work together. And that is the
    only way we can ensure ultimate safety when traveling in waters
    not of our own.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        I would just like to say for the witnesses, I appreciate
    your patience, but what I am hoping you are gaining from this
    is realizing how you may want to respond, and if you do not go
    directly with your written statement, that will be submitted in
    the record. But it is important for you to hear the basic views
    of the Members.
        I do want to say, just in regard to the statistics, that
    you probably need to divide by 52 weeks the 10 million, and you
    are probably coming up with a city of about 200,000. Even then
    the statistics appear to be still very impressive in the sense
    that not as big a problem as in some of our urban areas, but we
    are probably talking about a year-long population of about
    200,000, give or take.
        At this time the Chair would recognize and thank Mr. Van
    Hollen for his patience as well. You have the floor, sir.
        Mr. Van Hollen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for holding these hearings, and I welcome all the witnesses
    and look forward to your testimony. I hope these hearings will
    accomplish two things: First is to raise awareness in the
    American public about what questions they need to ask and have
    answered as they proceed on cruise ships and just be educated
    as to what rules apply and what rules do not apply. And they
    need to understand that when you board a cruise ship and leave
    the U.S. shores, you do not necessarily carry with you the full
    protections of the American laws. And, in fact, in some ways
    you are in charted legal waters.
        Second, in addition to raising awareness, I hope we will be
    able to identify those areas where there may be a need to take
    additional measures. No one wants to go overboard in terms of
    measures, but I think that it is important that we identify
    those areas where it may be helpful. So if that comes out of
    these hearings, I think they will have been a success. And I
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding it.
        Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman and appreciate his
    participation.
        Let me ask unanimous consent that all members of the
    subcommittee be permitted to place an opening statement in the
    record and that the record remain open for 3 days for that
    purpose, and without objection, so ordered.
        I ask further unanimous consent that all witnesses be
    permitted to include their written statements in the record,
    and without objection, so ordered.
        Further, I ask unanimous consent that the following be made
    part of the hearing record: a written statement from Mr. Terry
    L. Dale, president, Cruise Lines International Association,
    about the cruise line industry and taking a vacation on a
    cruise ship; a letter from Ms. Kathryn Sudeikis, president,
    American Society of Travel Agents, encouraging its members to
    take a vacation aboard a cruise ship. And without objection, so
    ordered. Without objection, the written statement and the
    letter will be made part of the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.017

        Mr. Shays. Also, unanimous consent to insert a statement
    from our colleague, Alcee Hastings of Florida's 23rd District.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Alcee Hastings follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.020

        Mr. Shays. And I would further just point out that we have
    the International Cruise Victims Association, which is a
    nonprofit organization supporting advocacy, an organization of
    cruise victims and their families, and some of these members
    are with us today, and we just acknowledge their presence as
    well.
        As I think the panelists know, we swear in all our
    witnesses. I failed to put under oath only one Member in my
    years as chairman, and that was the Senator from West Virginia.
    I chickened out. But everyone else has been, and so let me just
    first announce our witnesses. We have Mr. Kendall Carver from
    Phoenix, AZ. We have Mr. Son Michael Pham, Bellevue, WA. We
    have Ms. Deborah Shaffer of Tucson, AZ. We have Ms. Janet
    Kelly, Cottonwood, AZ. We have Mr. Ira Leonard of Hamden, CT,
    and we have Mr. Brian Mulvaney, Miami, FL.
        And let me say to the witnesses that we would ask you to
    stand and we will now swear you in.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Shays. Note for the record all our witnesses have
    responded in the affirmative.
        I suspect this is probably the first time you have ever
    appeared before Congress, and if not, you have had a little
    practice. But if not, the worst thing you can do is try to
    speak too quickly. It would be better to just close off your
    comments than try to rush through. Be assured that you are
    going to be able to make your points through the questions and
    so on. So you are not going to leave here wishing you did not
    say something, unless you simply forgot to say it, but you will
    be given that opportunity.
        We are going to go down the line, and, Mr. Carver, the mic
    should have a light on it noting that it is on. Just tap it
    here just to see. Yes, you are all right. OK, welcome. Lovely
    to have you here.

     STATEMENTS OF KENDALL CARVER, PHOENIX, AZ; SON MICHAEL PHAM,
        BELLEVUE, WA; DEBORAH SHAFFER, TUCSON, AZ; JANET KELLY,
     COTTONWOOD, AZ; IRA LEONARD, HAMDEN, CT; AND BRIAN MULVANEY,
                               MIAMI, FL

                      STATEMENT OF KENDALL CARVER

        Mr. Carver. I would like to take this opportunity to thank
    the subcommittee for accepting our testimony in connection with
    the disappearance of our daughter, Merrian Lynn Carver.
        Merrian disappeared during the third week of August in the
    year 2002. We contacted the police in Cambridge, MA, where she
    lived. They determined through credit card transactions that
    she had purchased a round-trip ticket to Seattle, returning
    from Vancouver, and a ticket on the Celebrity Cruise Line Ship
    Mercury leaving Seattle on August 27th. Merrian disappeared
    from that ship.
        I provided supporting material to the subcommittee, which
    goes into considerable detail, and I would like to summarize
    our experience with the cruise line. Since they were not able
    to provide the necessary answers to our questions through the
    Risk Management Department, we retained both private
    investigators and law firms to investigate her disappearance.
        Some months later we uncovered the following facts: The
    steward servicing our daughter's cabin reported her missing to
    the supervisor each day for 5 days. The supervisor told the
    steward ``just do your job and that's it.''
        At the end of the cruise, some of Merrian's clothing and
    personal items were disposed of and other items were put in
    storage. No effort was made to report Merrian's disappearance
    either to the authorities or to her family. In effect, these
    actions or lack of actions kept Merrian's disappearance from
    being discovered until the Cambridge Police acted, which was
    over 3 weeks later, and in effect, she vanished from the Earth.
        During the third week in September, the management of Royal
    Caribbean--``the owners'' of the cruise ship, took steps to
    cover up the facts concerning her disappearance. These actions
    are covered in documents which are provided on the table under
    supplemental folder, which I have provided.
        At the end of September, we hired the detective agency of
    Kroll and Associates and the law firm of Blake and Associates
    to investigate her disappearance.
        Throughout the investigation, the Royal Caribbean Cruise
    Line took every step to impede the efforts of our detective
    agencies and law firms. Officials of the cruise line provided
    both inaccurate and misleading information and kept our
    investigators from questioning members of the crew.
        Cruise line officials also withheld information that would
    have been helpful, including information that we had requested
    by subpoena on both December 2, 2004 and January 24, 2005.
        Only after we went to the courts in Florida and
    Massachusetts at the end of December were we able to force crew
    members that had knowledge of her disappearance to be deposed.
    In other words, it took us 4\1/2\ months to get to one crew
    member that had seen Merrian on that ship.
        On January 16th and 17th, we finally deposed the steward
    and the head of the hotel of the cruise. At that point we
    discovered for the first time the fact that our daughter had
    been reported missing daily starting August 29th and no action
    was taken. In other words, it took us, as I just said, 4\1/2\
    months to interview a member of the crew and that cost over
    $75,000.
        On February 9th, we received only one item from two
    subpoenas that had been issued, and that was a poor-quality
    picture of Merrian getting on the boat. So we took the
    direction of going directly to the Board of Directors of the
    Royal Caribbean Cruise Line with all the depositions showing
    the coverup, hoping that we could jump-start action concerning
    her case.
        We are now a year later, and I must say that we still have
    not received the information that we subpoenaed on December
    2nd, and that exercise was not helpful.
        I do not understand why a reputable corporation would
    attempt to cover up the disappearance of our daughter. Did some
    officials of this cruise line assume that the families would
    not have the financial or emotional resources to investigate
    this matter thoroughly?
        The needless stress that my wife and I have endured while
    we have struggled with a large corporation for information
    about our missing daughter has made our loss even more
    difficult to bear.
        As a result of the last hearings, there has been much press
    concerning Merrian in various news media around the world, and
    we have received comments. There was a comment in the Arizona
    Republic, which I would like to read to you, and it says, in
    effect, ``I agree with the other respondents; Royal Caribbean
    is grossly negligent in this case. By dragging their feet,
    providing misinformation, getting rid of a person with
    information (the supervisor) and destroying evidence they are
    at least guilty of obstruction of justice.''
        Now, is this case unique? I think it is unique because I
    don't think anyone else has spent the time and the resources to
    break through the coverup, which we did.
        Mr. Shays. How much have you spent, just for the record?
        Mr. Carver. Way over $75,000.
        Are we unique? If you read the attachments in my summary
    documents, you will find that few, if any, individuals are ever
    successfully convicted of a crime on a cruise ship. In fact, by
    their own statement in the Jacksonville Business Journal in
    June of the year 2005, a Royal Caribbean representative,
    Michael Sheehan, indicated they do not keep statistics on
    missing passengers. I find that hard to believe.
        Now, what can we conclude from our experiences and the
    experiences of other victims?
        If something happens to you or a loved one on a cruise
    ship, you are on your own. Don't expect the crew of the ship or
    governmental agencies, which I would include the FBI, onshore
    to assist you in your effort. You are on your own.
        Because of jurisdictional issues, you cannot assume what
    laws will govern your situation. This issue was reviewed in
    great detail in the February 26th issue of the New York Times.
        In my opinion, the current system is broke and desperately
    needs reform to assure the safety of passengers on cruise
    ships.
        Unless something is changed in the current regulations, the
    cruise line industry will be able to treat the next family as
    we were treated. God save the next family.
        After the subcommittee's hearing last December, the Smiths
    and I determined that we needed to make a change to the
    industry. As a result, we have formed a group of victims. This
    organization is called International Cruise Victims. Our Web
    site can be found at www.international-cruisevictims.org.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Carver, I am going to ask you to kind of
    close up here.
        Mr. Carver. OK. Well, let me just read a summary statement
    here.
        Mr. Shays. Sure.
        Mr. Carver. From a crew member, we received this a week
    ago: As a crew member from Vancouver, with employment on
    several major lines over the last 8 years, your story only
    touches the tip of the iceberg. It is an exhaustive study you
    will find on behalf of your loved ones, which keeps this issue
    front and center. Many families have not come forward. Instead
    they intend to believe the cruise line when they reiterate
    their old, tired response that this is a suicide. In addition
    to the many guests going missing, there are numerous crew
    members each year which go unreported because they are from
    Third World countries.
        And to put a positive spin to what I have said, which is
    not a positive story----
        Mr. Shays. You need to close up now.
        Mr. Carver. Yes. We would like to enter into the record a
    list of recommendations to be considered to change the cruise
    line industry.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carver follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.035

        Mr. Shays. All right. Thank you very much. We have copies
    of that. Thank you.
        Let me tell you that, in my judgment, however this hearing
    concludes and whatever we do, what you have gone through is
    outrageous, and we would respectfully request that the cruise
    line totally and completely cooperate with your need to know
    what happened, etc. So I just hope, if nothing else happens, we
    will at least see some change in how they have responded. To
    fire this superintendent is not satisfying the need for you to
    know.
        Mr. Pham.

                     STATEMENT OF SON MICHAEL PHAM

        Mr. Pham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
    subcommittee. I am honored to be here today along with several
    families of victims of the cruise industry immediately behind
    me, including John and Jill Savone, who lost a son from the
    same cruise ship in 1999, to speak on issues of cruise ship
    safety, security, and accountability.
        I would like to start out by saying that I am not an expert
    on safety and security issues aboard cruise ships. However, I
    am more educated today than I was before May 2005.
    Unfortunately for my family, it is too late to prevent what
    happened to us. But I know by being here today it is not too
    late for me to help others from becoming victims like all of
    us.
        Since the time is limited, I am going to skip through what
    I submitted to the record of my testimony and tell you a little
    of the background of my folks.
        Briefly, more than 30 years ago my parents and five of us
    left South Vietnam on the day before Saigon City fell to the
    communists. We risked our lives spending 2 weeks in the Pacific
    Ocean with little food and water. We came here with nothing so
    that we could live in freedom. We came to the United States
    with nothing and worked hard for everything we have today. As
    American citizens, we obey the rules and laws of the country,
    we cherish our freedom, and we trust the justice system to
    protect our rights.
        Last May 2005, all of the children treated Mom and Dad to a
    vacation, a trip to Chicago to visit the grandchildren followed
    by a 7-day Caribbean cruise, then back to Chicago for 2 more
    weeks with the grandkids. The cruise was a Mother's Day gift,
    traveling with their daughter and granddaughter. On May 12,
    2005, my parents vanished from the Carnival Destiny when the
    ship was sailing between the islands of Barbados and Aruba. The
    Mother's Day gift turned into another tragic and mysterious
    disappearance from a Carnival Cruise Line ship.
        On the evening of May 12th, a ship photographer reported
    that she noticed personal belongings by lounge chairs on the
    third deck, two pair of sandals, and a purse. The family hung
    our regularly in this area, lounging on the chairs, and Mom and
    Dad would leave their sandals and personal belongings on the
    chairs or deck between them. A crew member retrieved the found
    items, notified the assistant chief of security, and was told
    to log the items and phone the room. Thirty minutes later, the
    other family members came back to their cabin and received a
    phone call from the front desk to retrieve the found items.
    Then they realized something unusual had happened and alerted
    the crew members. This is at midnight.
        Following our parents' disappearance, it took almost 3
    hours later before the first general announcement was made over
    the public speakers. The crew waited for over 4 hours before
    notifying the U.S. Coast Guard and allowed the ship to further
    distance itself from the location where our parents were
    originally reported missing. Too much time had elapsed between
    the U.S. Coast Guard notification and the first search and
    rescue from the Netherlands Coast Guard. Under the direction of
    the Coast Guard, the ship turned around to participate in the
    search mission. It took 12 hours before the Destiny vessel
    returned to the original location. The full search and rescue
    mission was called off. You know why it was called off? In less
    than 13 hours from the presumed time of our parents'
    disappearance, based on the information provided by the ship's
    captain to the Coast Guard that survivability was very low. We
    have that record from the Coast Guard.
        We believe there is more detailed information on our
    parents' cause of death than what is actually being released by
    Carnival Cruise Line. Four hours went by before the security
    and surveillance on-duty investigator was contacted--4 hours.
    Then an additional 30 minutes went by before he contacted the
    FBI. It took them 4 hours to decide to look in the security
    camera to find out if they found anything about my parents. The
    area where the personal belongings were found was left
    unprotected for 7 hours until the FBI requested a crew to seal
    off the area. Guess what happened when the FBI showed up in St.
    Maarten? They boarded the ship when people got off the ship at
    the same time because they came there to take a report. They
    went on the ship to interview my family members and some of the
    crew members and that is it. People got off the ship. Nobody
    had a chance to speak or be questioned by the FBI.
        Then another thing. My family reported last seeing my
    family at 7:20 p.m. Eleven and a half hours after my parents
    were reported missing, the cabin housekeeping attendant
    reported to the captain that he saw my parents at 8:45 p.m. So
    during all that time they were searching the wrong place in
    this big, big vast ocean. They were clueless. They did not talk
    to everybody, apparently. They were more focused on planning
    the next day's short activities in St. Maarten, which is a
    replacement for Aruba, than protecting crucial information and
    evidence pertaining to two of their missing passengers; our
    parents.
        The FBI met the ship in St. Maarten to interview some crew
    members. I mentioned about that. These are two American
    citizens with no personal and financial problems, no serious
    health problems, living the happiest time of their lives, both,
    just like many others, vanished without a trace, witness, or
    surveillance tapes of what happened to them.
        After my family members were left off in San Juan, the
    cruise ship, just clean up the ship, people got off, big chaos
    going on, and then that is when they handed out the flyer from
    the FBI that anyone having information to contact the FBI. And
    that is it. The arrogant ``business as usual'' attitude by
    Carnival Cruise Line is the normal ``take no responsibility''
    reaction of the world's largest cruise company, accounting for
    more than half the world's cruise industry travelers. It is
    important to note that the majority of their passengers are
    citizens of the United States of America.
        I am going to wrap up. Currently the Death on the High Seas
    Act [DOHSA], a 1920's law enacted by the U.S. Congress, is
    still in effect, with complicated jurisdictional issues,
    continues to protect the cruise industry from being held
    accountable for the safety and security of its passengers. It
    is time for our Government to bring the DOHSA to the 21st
    century.
        My only recommendation is nothing is going to happen from
    these hearings, nothing is going to happen with us being here
    today, nothing is going to happen until the cruise industry
    admits that we do have problems, we do have issues. Don't look
    at the statistics. We do have problems. And then that will be
    the very, very first step before something being done.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pham follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.039

        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much for your testimony, and we
    will look forward to having dialog with you.
        Ms. Shaffer, you need to bring the mic a little closer to
    you. Thank you, and take your time.
        Ms. Shaffer. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Shays. I hear you fine.

                      STATEMENT OF DEBORAH SHAFFER

        Ms. Shaffer. I am Deborah Savage Shaffer, the mother of
    four daughters, all currently teenagers except for the oldest,
    who is 21 and living on her own. I have been a widow for the
    past 12 years and I am currently a full-time Mom.
        The reason that I have been invited to tell my story today
    is because I am a member of International Cruise Victims, a
    group that was formed mainly to get the word out to the public,
    domestically as well as internationally, of the well-kept and
    expertly hidden secret of the criminal activities and dangers
    that are occurring on board these cruise ships and to educate
    the public of the cruise lines' standard procedures in dealing
    with criminal or potential criminal problems. We hope
    education, information, and regulations will gave passengers,
    as well as cruise line employees, rights, security, and
    protection.
        In April 2003, I took a 10-day cruise with my four
    daughters to the southern Caribbean on board the Carnival
    Cruise Lines' Legend. I shared a balcony room with my 13-year-
    old and my 15-year-old. My other two daughters shared an
    interior room down the hall. When we departed from the dock, my
    daughters and I were standing on the balcony of our room as we
    slowly moved away from port. I should have been tipped off that
    all was not as it appeared, when as we stood enjoying the
    breeze and sensation of the departure we were bowled over by
    the strong, pungent smell of marijuana. We tried to see where
    it was coming from, but it was impossible because of the design
    of the ship and balconies.
        Boarding the ship had taken hours, possibly half a day. It
    was the most detailed security check-in that I had ever been
    through and definitely surpassed the airports and airlines, in
    my opinion. So how did the marijuana get on board? But with the
    excitement of the day, I dismissed the thought. I felt safe,
    secure, and had no doubt that everyone on board this ship had
    to be reputable and of good character. It was not anything that
    I gave any more thought to. Passing through the intense
    security measures of the cruise line, once on board the ship I
    felt 100 percent safe, secure, and trusting. The crew seemed
    open, friendly, and professional. I subconsciously let my guard
    down. Right away, my kids met other kids their own age, and
    they were all busy running around the ship together.
        The first evening on board, my 15-year-old daughter met a
    young girl her own age, and they were hanging out together. My
    daughter was supposed to be back to our cabin by 10 p.m., but
    when she arrived, I was already in bed asleep. She brought her
    new friend into the room to meet me. So we turned on the light,
    her friend sat down, and the three of us talked for a while.
    Then they said they wanted to go back to the girl's cabin to
    watch a video. I told my daughter to be back by midnight. I
    fell back to sleep thinking my daughter would wake me up again
    when she got in. But at 4 a.m., I woke up, startled that she
    had not come back. I jumped out of bed, and in my pajamas I ran
    down the hall to Security.
        It took about an hour to get everyone moving on finding my
    daughter, but after giving them a first name of the girl that
    she was with, it seemed that they only knocked on one door
    before finding my daughter. She came out of the room rubbing
    her swollen, puffy eyes. I was very angry with her, but
    believed that she had just fallen asleep. I asked her what had
    happened, as she was very defensive. She was overreacting to my
    questions, but at that time I had no suspicion that a rape had
    just occurred.
        One or 2 days later, my 13-year-old daughter came to me and
    told me that she had been informed by my 15-year-old daughter
    and the new girlfriend that the girl's brother had raped my
    daughter that night.
        I then confronted my 15-year-old daughter, but she denied
    it. She told me that nothing had happened. She became overly
    hysterical and cried in denial constantly, whenever I tried to
    approach the subject. I knew by her over-emotional behavior
    that she was lying and that something had happened. I took her
    to the ship's doctor 3 days in a row, but each time she would
    become hysterical and deny the rape. Each visit brought nothing
    but solemn and somber stares from the doctor for as long as I
    wanted to sit there requesting an examination. He told me that
    if my daughter is telling me the truth and if, in fact, she is
    still a virgin, having never had a pelvic exam, that by him
    examining her the examination in itself would be violating her
    and that my insistence of an examination would traumatize her
    for life.
        I had become the perpetrator. The captain called me in to
    talk to me on two occasions after this. He told me that we were
    on ``international waters.'' He did not tell me what that
    meant. He told me that he felt badly, but that since we have no
    proof of the rape, there was nothing that could be done. He
    told me that he has two daughters of his own and that he felt
    very badly about the incident. The rapist was the friend's 30-
    year-old brother who was sharing a cabin with her and her
    younger brother.
        I had no one to consult with, no one to turn to. I didn't
    know what to do. Finishing up the trip on that cruise was
    laborious, and for much of the trip I didn't come out of my
    room. It was one of the worst experiences of my entire life.
        I have since learned the true story of what happened that
    night, as 3 years of maturity have given my daughter the
    courage and character to discuss it. After becoming aware of
    the Jennifer Hagel-Smith story and the Ken Carver story, she
    told me that she was now ready to tell me what really happened
    on that first night on board the Legend after leaving our room
    to go to the newly found friend's room to watch the video.
        My daughter had climbed into one of the bunks, and while
    watching the video she fell asleep. The next thing she knew,
    there was a man on top of her. The room was dark. She thought
    it was the girl's father. He had alcohol breath. She told him
    that she needed to get up, but he wouldn't let her. She started
    to scream and he covered her mouth, muffling her screams and
    proceeded to rape her. The next thing she knew, there was
    knocking on the door of the room and that was when we found
    her.
        She denied the rape because she thought it was her fault
    and also because she was embarrassed and didn't want ``the
    whole world to know.'' She is not sure at what point she
    realized it was the girl's 30-year-old brother.
        Rape is an earth-shattering, traumatizing experience that
    kills the person that you are and slowly changes you into
    someone else.
        From that day forward, my daughter has distanced herself
    emotionally from me. Now she never shares her innermost
    thoughts with me. Losing her father almost 12 years ago and
    then being raped 8 years later is an enormous hurt in her whole
    being that could never begin to heal until she was able to
    address what had happened.
        I am extremely thankful to the Hagel-Smith family and to
    Ken Carver for coming forward and standing up for what is right
    and being brave enough to insist that people listen to the
    truth. With their efforts and the efforts of other cruise
    victims who could not be here today, my daughter has been able
    to take her first step in the healing process. And as her
    mother, whose goal in life was to raise her four daughters to
    at least the age of 18 without being sexually abused, I have
    lived with the fact that I failed my daughter over these past 3
    years. I was not able to protect her or defend her.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Shaffer follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.043

        Mr. Shays. Ms. Shaffer, thank you so much for your
    testimony, and the one thing I am certain is you have not
    failed your daughter.
        Ms. Shaffer. Thank you.
        Mr. Shays. It is pretty remarkable to raise four young
    ladies without a partner. Very remarkable.
        Ms. Kelly, if you would bring that mic to you?
        I just want to ask you, Ms. Shaffer, is your daughter in
    agreement that you should give testimony today or are you
    sharing this information without her consent?
        Ms. Shaffer. She is very ashamed. She has not even at this
    point----
        Mr. Shays. How about just giving me the answer?
        Ms. Shaffer. She is 18. It is so hard----
        Mr. Shays. Let me ask you the question, though. Is she
    asking you not to or is she just indifferent?
        Ms. Shaffer. She did not ask me not to.
        Mr. Shays. OK. But she didn't ask you to.
        Ms. Shaffer. She is not happy about it, but she did not ask
    me not to.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Well, we will just make sure that what you
    shared will lead to some good so that your daughter will see
    that.
        Ms. Shaffer. I hope so.
        Mr. Shays. Ms. Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Can you hear me?
        Mr. Shays. We hear you fine.

                        STATEMENT OF JANET KELLY

        Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the subcommittee
    also. My name is Janet Kelly. I would like to begin by telling
    a little bit about myself. I am a happily married woman to the
    same man, Rick Kelly. He is sitting behind me today.
        Mr. Shays. For the record, he smiled.
        Ms. Kelly. We are going on 30 years of marriage. God help
    us, huh? We live in an average size town in Arizona, and we
    have two sons, who are the love of our life.
        I am a successful realtor for a large firm going into my
    4th year of sales. My husband is also a hard-working man. We
    are a traditional family, traditional values. We work hard, pay
    our taxes, go to church, give back to our community. And, above
    all, we do obey the law.
        In February 2000--we had been beat up pretty good--we had
    lost our daughter, and my husband had a heart attack 6 months
    later. I decided to do a ``healing cruise,'' 4 days with some
    neighbors. I had hoped to relax, regroup, and return home to my
    family. It was a long overdue vacation, and I could have never
    anticipated the following: On the last night of the cruise,
    shortly before dinner, I was drugged by a bartender employed by
    the cruise line. He led me a remote bathroom marked ``crew
    members only'' and sexually assaulted me when I was in a semi-
    conscious and unconscious state.
        I cannot begin to describe to you today the pain,
    humiliation, and suffering this incident inflicted on me and my
    family. Instead of being able to regroup after everything that
    had transpired in our family, we were again totally fractured.
        I did report the crime to my local authorities, who
    informed me that the FBI had jurisdiction over crimes at sea.
    But it took the FBI months to investigate and interview the
    assailant who raped me. They did not prosecute him, even though
    they had my clothing, the rape kit completed at my local
    hospital, the individual's identity, and my testimony. The
    authorities had my full and complete cooperation to do whatever
    was necessary to apprehend and bring the criminal to justice.
        After the FBI interviewed this criminal, he remained on the
    same ship. I was terrified that I had been exposed to HIV, and
    it was only after filing my civil suit against the cruise line
    that the cruise line conceded to have his tested for HIV. They
    fired him and sent him back to his homeland, Jamaica.
        I did write a letter to my Senator, along with 200
    congressional leaders. I was concerned for others' safety as I
    walked off that ship, and for good reason. I felt that the
    injustice of what happened to me has never been righted. In my
    letter I proposed the same changes, back in 2000, which I will
    again propose today.
        For the record, I would like to inform Congress that my
    assailant went on later that same year and was re-employed with
    yet another cruise line. And I am not happy about that. It was
    determined that he falsified his application and they fired
    him. But where is he now?
        This is hardly the image portrayed on the cruise line
    advertisements. Could this rapist and others like himself be on
    another cruise line? And how is it that these huge cruise
    corporations continue to operate business as usual with
    absolutely no accountability for the crimes that occur on their
    ships?
        I am going to suggest the following, and these are the same
    recommendations I had made back in 2000: U.S. Marshals be
    present on cruise ships; a main data base of terminated
    individuals and employees that all cruise lines must report to.
    I want to add here, too, that there needs to be communication
    between the FBI and the cruise lines because I think there is a
    real breakdown in that area. Changes in legislation, making
    these cruise lines safe for U.S. passengers. Warnings to
    passengers. This incident happened to me on my last night of
    the cruise, and I think that is when most people are
    vulnerable.
        In closing, over the past 6 years since my ordeal, I have
    heard too many stories about cruise victim after victim. The
    injustice of these crimes burns my very soul. Two of the people
    that disappeared on these cruise lines--George Smith and Jim
    Scavone--disappeared on my youngest son's birthday, July 5th.
    Enough is enough. Having been a victim, I feel each one of
    these families' pain. I offer all the families that have lost
    loved ones my sincere condolences. Your children's deaths are
    not in vain. By being strong and coming forward with your
    testimonies, you can give your loved ones a voice today and
    prevent the next unnecessary death. I ask that you not be
    intimidated by these cruise companies. They are big, they are
    wealthy, they are powerful. But they will bend under the weight
    of your conviction.
        I want to add I feel honored to be here today as a
    representative of hundreds of cruise victims who do not have a
    voice. And thank you for letting me speak today. I want to say
    a prayer to the Lord that you are successful in making the
    necessary changes so that crimes at sea diminish and all of us
    can get on with healing and put all this trauma behind us once
    and for all. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Kelly follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.046

        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Ms. Kelly. It is very admirable of
    you to come and testify today.
        Ms. Kelly. It was not easy.
        Mr. Shays. I am sure it was not.
        Ms. Kelly. I got through it, though.
        Mr. Shays. I can understand why your husband has a nice
    smile. I am sure he is very proud of you.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Leonard.

                        STATEMENT OF IRA LEONARD

        Mr. Leonard. Good afternoon.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Leonard, I am going to ask you to put that
    mic on top of those papers you have there and put it closer to
    you.
        Mr. Leonard. Better.
        Mr. Shays. That is better.
        Mr. Leonard. OK. Good afternoon. My name is Ira Leonard. My
    wife and I are retired college teachers. We do not represent
    any organization concerned with today's activities, nor are we
    involved in a lawsuit or possessor of any Federal grant or
    contract, now or during the last 2 years.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Leonard, we do hear you, but we need that
    mic closer to you.
        Mr. Leonard. OK.
        Mr. Shays. I know you are a professor and so do not easily
    take suggestions.
        Mr. Leonard. We are here today because my wife and I were
    victims of a grand larceny on board a Royal Caribbean
    International cruise ship on June 2, 2004, in Bermuda. The
    Royal Caribbean International not only refused to discuss the
    theft with us, but eventually denied to an officer of the
    Federal Maritime Commission that it ever took place. This is
    the letter.
        We reported the theft early in the morning when we
    discovered the loss. Six hours later, the official search was
    conducted, and the jewelry worth $6,700 was not found.
        We filed a signed statement, using an RCI form, with the
    aid of the ship's chief security officer, William MacLaughlin.
    This is the signed statement.
        MacLaughlin told us the theft was a crime of opportunity
    and the jewelry was most likely out on the streets. What made
    it a crime of opportunity, we are convinced, was the negligence
    of the staff before the theft as well as immediately after the
    theft.
        First, there was no safe in the room. Our steward said the
    room was secure because it could only be entered with the key
    cards. The steward said there were only three people with
    access to the room: my wife, me, and himself. Yet my wife was
    issued four different key cards over a period of 2 days in
    order to have proper access to our room, which we reported in
    our signed statement.
        The first key card did not work. The second did not work
    because it was to somebody else's room. The third key card
    worked, but had my name on it, so she had to be issued yet
    another card with her name on it. The fourth card worked. None
    of the key cards were destroyed in front of her. The third card
    worked and had the last three digits, 0-2-0, of our four-digit
    room number on it, as well as our dinner seating time, 8:30
    p.m., as did her fourth key card. Anyone with knowledge of the
    ship would know exactly when we would not be in the room and
    could try rooms 3020, 4020, etc.
        Chief Security Officer MacLaughlin specifically told us
    after the burglary that the key cards should have been cut up
    in front of my wife. We feel that the key card incidents were
    evidence of negligence and lack of security. Guest Relations
    Manager Luis Martins kept dismissing the notion of multiple key
    cards as being a problem, insisting they had been deactivated
    when they were turned in. However, at approximately 3 p.m. in
    Guest Relations on Saturday after the burglary, we and several
    other passengers witnessed a crew member with a box of key
    cards cutting them up into little pieces.
        Key cards are also used as credit cards, which presents
    another security problem. On May 31st, we ordered drinks in the
    Schooner Lounge at 11 p.m., our first drinks of the evening,
    and our only drinks, handing our key card to the waitress. When
    neither the drinks nor the card had arrived by 11:45 p.m., we
    went looking for her. She said she had asked another person to
    deliver our drinks. The card with all of our information was
    out of our presence for 45 minutes. A situation like this
    presents an opportunity for burglary, identity theft, planting
    of contraband in a room, etc., if someone was so inclined.
        Luis Martins told us that our statement and the chief
    security officer's report about the burglary were being
    forwarded to Royal Caribbean International in Miami. He gave us
    their card and instructed us to contact them upon returning
    home. He also told us not to worry and to continue enjoying the
    cruise because ``Royal Caribbean has a reputation for doing the
    right thing.'' We were naive enough at the time to believe that
    Royal Caribbean International would do the right thing, but we
    no longer enjoyed the cruise.
        We repeatedly asked Mr. Martins for a copy of our signed
    statement reporting the theft and a copy of the chief security
    officer's report, but it was not until my wife told him on
    Saturday afternoon we were not getting off the ship without a
    copy of our report that he delivered a copy of our signed
    statement, but he would not give us a copy of the security
    officer's report.
        We reported the burglary as instructed to Royal Caribbean
    Representative Betty Taillefer, Personal Property Guest
    Relations, in Miami on June 9th, the day after we arrived home.
    It is at this point that the saga really began for us.
        She said she had not received any information about the
    theft from Empress of the Seas. Pursuant to our phone
    conversation with her, we faxed her a copy of our signed
    shipboard statement along with additional statements made to
    her that day and again on June 29th. Betty Taillefer sent us
    two identical RCI form letters in which she dismissed company
    responsibility, directing us to the cruise documents disclaimer
    of responsibility and officially referring to the grand larceny
    as ``an unfortunate incident.''
        We reported the theft to the Federal Maritime Commission in
    August 2004. An agent told us that the Commission sought to act
    as an intermediary and work our solutions, but it had no
    coercive power to do so. On January 26, 2005, the Federal
    Maritime Commission agent said she contacted Ms. Betty
    Taillefer, and Ms. Taillefer sent her the same form letter she
    sent us, referring her to the cruise documents. When the agent
    requested Ms. Taillefer to send her a copy of Security Chief
    MacLaughlin's report, Taillefer said she would, but it has not
    been forthcoming. Instead, Betty Taillefer faxed the Federal
    Maritime Commission this letter, which says, ``We contacted our
    vessel and no notice of incident was reported.''
        ``We have contacted our vessel and no notice of incident
    was reported.'' Yet I have here the signed report.
        Mr. Shays. I am sorry, Mr. Leonard, if you would bring it
    to----
        Mr. Leonard. We are just about done.
        Mr. Shays. OK.
        Mr. Leonard. We sent the president of AAA all of our
    information since AAA booked us and asked how AAA could in good
    conscience continue to book their members on Royal Caribbean
    International without informing them about the potential
    problems with key cards, thefts, etc. Vice President for AAA
    Travel Services Sandra Hughes sent us a letter in which she
    assured us, that our claim had been reviewed properly and
    appropriately, and AAA had ``verified that when a new key card
    is produced, the previous key card is deactivated as a security
    measure.'' I guess that is why my wife and I and other RCI
    guests saw a Guest Relations staff member busily cutting dozens
    of key cards 2 days after the burglary.
        Finally, on April 20, 2005, we wrote to Captain Howard
    Newhoff, Security Manager for Royal Caribbean International,
    asking for the official report by RCI of the grand larceny to
    some law enforcement agency. A few days later, Betty Taillefer
    called us to tell us personally that RCI did not have to report
    thefts of less than $10,000 and followed it up with this letter
    that says precisely that.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Leonard. We are going to go to
    Mr. Mulvaney. If you want to just----
        Mr. Leonard. I have one more line.
        Mr. Shays. Go for it.
        Mr. Leonard. This is ``bingo'' time. In this week's Time
    Magazine, Captain Bill Wright, head of RCI Fleet Operations,
    told the reporter that Royal Caribbean discloses every
    incident, even petty thefts, to authorities. We are still
    waiting to find out to which law enforcement agency RCI
    reported our grand larceny. Perhaps this subcommittee can find
    out for us.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Leonard, we will find out for you.
        Mr. Leonard. All right.
        Mr. Shays. Because this subcommittee has some real
    questions about the accuracy of the statistics that the
    industry provides to us, so it will be a good follow-through.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Leonard follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.091

        Mr. Shays. Mr. Mulvaney.

                      STATEMENT OF BRIAN MULVANEY

        Mr. Mulvaney. Good afternoon. I am appearing before you
    today to tell you about a terrible tragedy which happened to a
    beautiful young girl, Lynsey O'Brien. I want to tell you about
    this tragedy and how it could have been avoided and urge you to
    consider passing a new law to prevent it from happening to any
    other family.
        I am a childhood friend of the O'Brien family. We grew up
    on the same street. The O'Brien children and my children are
    lifelong friends. The O'Briens traveled from Ireland to the
    United States to visit with us before we took off on a cruise
    from Fort Lauderdale and returned to Fort Lauderdale.
        The O'Briens brought with them four children and returned
    with only three.
        Lynsey, who was a vibrant 15-year-old girl, died as a
    result of a bartender on the Cost Cruise line serving her
    excessive amounts of alcohol, more than 10, knowing she was a
    minor. This bartender served these drinks despite the bold
    statement in the passenger contract that ``no minor will be
    served alcohol under age of 21 years old.'' There were signs
    all over the ship to the effect that alcohol will not be served
    to any persons under 21 years of age. Despite those warnings
    and signs posted, Lynsey was served more than 10 drinks and
    died on January 5th as a result. The alcohol affected her so
    much, she was so intoxicated that it was reported she was
    vomiting over the balcony and fell overboard.
        Through this tragedy, I have come to learn how difficult it
    is for victims and their families to seek justice. I know of no
    other commercial enterprise afforded such blanket coverage as
    the cruise industry. If alcohol is served to a 15-year-old in
    the United States, the bartender would be arrested, prosecuted,
    as well as the proprietors of the business and their liquor
    license would surely be revoked from the premises. Just because
    this action took place on board a ship should not insulate the
    bartender and the company from being held accountable for their
    criminal conduct.
        The message must be delivered to the cruise lines that if
    they take passengers from a U.S. port, they are responsible to
    return them safely or be held accountable if they commit crimes
    or acts of gross negligence. I cannot imagine a worse crime
    than plying a 15-year-old girl with so much liquor she
    literally died as a direct result. What makes this utterly
    unbearable is that the cruise ships believe they have limited
    accountability for their actions.
        There can be no moral argument to changing this law, only
    commercial. The shareholders demand great protection and
    receive that. Why not the lifeblood of the industry--we, the
    passengers? I do not support overregulation of private
    industry. What I do support is a victim's right to a full and
    fair account of their unfortunate circumstance and their
    ability to seek justice without being prohibited by laws
    enacted prior to the sinking of the Titanic. The pleasure
    cruise industry has grown today and was not envisioned to be
    this great by the sponsors of this law when it was originally
    enacted. This is a growth industry. The percentage of victims
    may not change; however, the number of victims certainly will
    over the future.
        We encourage people from other countries to come to the
    United States and enjoy our country. We encourage people from
    other countries to spend money here. My childhood friend, Paul
    O'Brien, sought help from the FBI and was told that there was
    nothing that can be done because they were not U.S. citizens.
    The United States needs to change its laws so that cruise ships
    coming and going from U.S. ports such as this are held
    accountable to all people traveling on those ships.
        Nothing can bring Lynsey back, but by changing the law,
    perhaps we can save another family a lifetime of anguish
    without their loved one.
        What we ask of the subcommittee is for you to put into
    place policies and procedures on these cruise lines with teeth
    in them, not just signs that are window dressings, to be sure
    that alcohol is not served to minors. Cruise ships who pick up
    passengers in the United States should be protected by U.S. law
    so the FBI will have jurisdiction to investigate and determine
    if criminal law has been violated and so the violators should
    be prosecuted. The DOHSA should be amended retroactively, like
    the one following the airplane disaster, so there is
    responsibility to the cruise ships, the only real means of
    deterrence.
        On behalf of the O'Brien family, I would like to thank you
    for allowing me to speak today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Mulvaney follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.093

        Mr. Shays. We thank you for your testimony. We thank all of
    you for your testimony. We will look forward to the dialog we
    will have.
        I am going to be calling on Mr. Lynch first, and then, Mr.
    Duncan, if you would like to go second. I am going to have the
    staff ask some questions, and then I will be asking questions.
        Thank you. Mr. Lynch, you have 10 minutes.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and
    at the outset I want to thank you for taking the leadership on
    this issue, and I commend you for your continued efforts to
    improve security and incident responses and investigation
    aboard international cruise ships.
        In addition, I want to just take a moment to thank the
    witnesses because it is your powerful testimony here today that
    will eventually lead to changes. And we have a situation here
    that you have brought to the notice of the U.S. Congress and
    others that the heart of our problem here is that in each and
    every incident that was described here today, the cruise line
    themselves has control of the crime scene. They have control of
    the employees. They have control of the evidence. They have
    control of the notification of law enforcement authorities. And
    this situation has arisen haphazardly. It is because there has
    been a lack of focus on these very issues, and in some cases,
    it is because the incidents have been deliberately concealed
    from the public until you have testified here today and in
    other cases previously, and you have had the courage to come
    forward. I know it is very difficult for you in many cases to
    talk about your loved ones, Mr. Carver, Ms. Kelly, and others.
    And I appreciate the difficulty that must present to you. And I
    can only pledge my energies to try to help come up with a plan,
    along with the chairman, to try to introduce some law and order
    on these ships so that we can feel safe when our loved ones go
    on a cruise.
        But, Ms. Kelly, I just wanted to ask you, after you
    reported the crime in your case, do you know of any actions
    that the ship's security officers took in response to your
    particular complaint?
        Ms. Kelly. No, I know of nothing until it--well, it was a
    process, but what I did is I notified the authorities right
    away when I got home, and then I just assumed, like in America,
    that once you report something, that there was going to be
    followup. It was actually a couple weeks before the FBI
    actually went on--actually, no, no, no. It was 2 weeks before
    they came out and interviewed me, and then I just kept calling
    and trying to get answers as to what was going on. You know,
    and you would get no response. And then it was 2 months before
    they went in and actually interviewed him, but there was no
    prosecution. I mean, they did not prosecute him.
        Mr. Lynch. Was there any explanation given to you after you
    reported it, after the assailant was interviewed, he remained
    employed for a while until you brought--as I understand the
    record, it was not until you brought the civil suit----
        Ms. Kelly. That is correct.
        Mr. Lynch [continuing]. That he was actually discharged.
        Ms. Kelly. That is correct. If I had not done what I did--
    and it was my one and only lawsuit. I don't believe in suing
    people, truthfully. I mean, I am not going to sue over a hot
    cup of coffee. This is not in my nature. But had I not done
    that, he could have still been working there all these past 6
    years. It was only because of that action that he was actually
    terminated. Law enforcement totally failed me. I am sorry, but
    it did. And, actually, there was an investigation--or when I
    wrote Senator McCain, he forwarded my letter to the FBI, and
    they have some oversight--I don't know the name of who, you
    know, looks into their investigations to make sure that the FBI
    is doing their job properly. And they just determined that
    there was very little they could do because the individual did
    not deny it. He admitted it. But he said it was consensual.
    Well, it was not consensual. I was raped.
        So, rape is a bad crime, and unfortunately it looks like
    you are the bad person. But, you know, so that is basically
    what happened.
        Mr. Lynch. I appreciate your courage in coming forward.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you. Let's just hope it does some good.
        Mr. Lynch. I really do.
        May I ask you--and you may not be aware of this--did the
    FBI disclose if there was a mutual assistance agreement, a
    memorandum between them and the registered jurisdiction in this
    case?
        Ms. Kelly. Repeat that again?
        Mr. Lynch. What flag were you flying under in terms of your
    ship?
        Ms. Kelly. Because of--when I sued civilly, one of the
    terms of my statement was that I was not at liberty to disclose
    the cruise line.
        Mr. Lynch. OK, OK. I am sorry.
        Ms. Kelly. No, that is OK. The cruise ship--no, I need to
    say that because I want it on record, or the terms of the
    settlement.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. I can get that from another source.
        Ms. Kelly. But you know what? Like I said, no regrets,
    because had I not done it----
        Mr. Lynch. Oh, absolutely. Undoubtedly----
        Ms. Kelly. But it would have been easier to bury my head
    and just tuck my head in the sand and say that it did not
    happen. That would have totally been the easier way to take.
        Mr. Lynch. OK. Mr. Chairman, I know you have questions. I
    am going to yield back.
        Mr. Shays. Thank the gentleman. At this time the Chair
    recognizes Mr. Duncan.
        Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Shays. I have appointments set
    up every 15 minutes this afternoon, with more still to come,
    before I knew about this hearing. But I did read the testimony
    of all of the witnesses, and certainly each of the witnesses
    has had a very terrible tragedy occur. I have four children,
    and I have always heard the worst thing that can ever happen to
    anyone is to outlive one of their children, and I certainly
    sympathize with that.
        The only thing that I see is that, I mean we should be able
    to agree on some steps, like immediate notification of crimes
    and things like that. Maybe there should be some sort of
    requirement about signs being posted on these ships that would
    say something to the effect that while the incidence of crime
    on ships is extremely, extremely low, if you are the victim of
    a crime, that it is to be reported immediately to the ship's
    captain, and immediately reported by them to the authorities on
    shore, and there may be some other steps that we can take, but
    certainly, we want to do what we can within reason, whatever
    that might be. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. I do not
    really have any questions.
        Mr. Shays. Thank the gentleman, and I agree with him, I
    agree with you and your points. Let me at this time recognize
    our counsel and the director of this subcommittee for some
    questions, and then I will be having some questions.
        Mr. Halloran. Thank you. Mr. Mulvaney, Mr. Leonard, Ms.
    Kelly and Ms. Shaffer, as witnesses who actually were on a
    cruise, could you describe for the subcommittee what you knew
    about security when you got on the ship. Was there written
    information provided to you? Were there signs or pamphlets?
    What kind of security awareness did you have when the cruise
    started as opposed to when it ended?
        Mr. Mulvaney. We had no idea of the dangers involved in a
    cruise, and it was only enforced after this incident, looking
    back on it, that you see the shortfalls within the cruise
    industry. And I was under the assumption that it was a safe
    environment. You heard one of the Congress Members mention
    early on about a party ship. What we actually went on was a
    family cruise vacation on a family cruise ship. we didn't go on
    a party ship, and----
        Mr. Halloran. If as you are sailing and there was an
    incident, you saw something wrong, maybe you smelled marijuana
    or thought you saw a crime happening, was it clear to whom you
    would report that? Was there somebody----
        Mr. Mulvaney. No, no. Neither was there any education or
    any literature on getting on the cruise ship, which if
    something was to occur, also like a man overboard policy or
    whatever it may be, who you actually notify or what went on,
    that was part of our confusion and problem on the evening our
    incident happened. We ended up ringing guest services. We
    didn't know who to get in touch with.
        Mr. Halloran. Mr. Leonard.
        Mr. Leonard. We had no idea about specific security issues.
    We were lulled into believing that this was really secure, as
    is evidenced by the fact that we never took jewelry or anything
    valuable when we went on a trip to Europe or anywhere else. So
    the jewelry that my wife took, she took because we had been
    assured there would be a safe in the room, this was a secure
    ship. I brought my tux because we were lulled into this idea,
    seduced into this idea there would be formal nights and there
    would be fun, and everything would be secure. Then, lo and
    behold, there was no safe, although the ship was completely
    refurbished a couple of months in 2004 before we got on it. It
    had been the Nordic Princess, then it became the Empress of the
    Seas. So at least 30 to 40 percent of the ship, according to
    the Guest Manager, Luis Martins, didn't have safes, and so it
    was a question then of going up for a half an hour at least to
    Guest Security, waiting in a line to put anything into the
    safe, and then waiting for another half an hour to take
    anything out of the safe, and, frankly, we didn't get on the
    ship in order to be waiting on lines to put things here and
    there.
        So we were very secure when after the burglary we reported
    it, and then 6 hours later everything started to fall apart.
    They could not secure the room and investigate for 6 hours.
        Then when the Secretary Officer, Mr. MacLaughlin, came in,
    he said that there should have been things done differently.
        Mr. Halloran. But before the robbery, was it clear who
    Security was on the ship? Could you----
        Mr. Leonard. No, no, absolutely not. I guess it is supposed
    to be even after September 11th obscure so that terrorists are
    not aware of how they might be surveilled, but I didn't notice
    anything. The only place that I ever had a sense that there
    might have been some big, large guys looking, was in the
    casino. Other than that, I never had a sense that there was
    anything. It was all very unobtrusive. There was no sign
    anywhere. There was nothing in the cruise documents, although
    we are now absolutely convinced that there should be a sign on
    every cruise ship, ``Enter at your own risk,'' and that AAA and
    all other bookers should provide information that you should be
    aware that a ship is not completely secure, and you can be
    robbed or raped or brutalized, and that you might not have any
    recourse because the company has protected itself by requiring
    you to sue them in Miami, FL or in their headquarters, which
    makes suing rather expensive.
        Mr. Halloran. Ms. Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Thank you for asking that question. I didn't get
    a real strong sense of security. They have you sign all these
    disclaimers when you get on. I am like, what the heck? I
    thought, well, we are going to have some fun here. But, you
    know, even the paperwork that they have you sign is very
    intimidating.
        I remember something about seeing something about a doctor
    when I got to the room. I don't remember if it was something
    posted or if I read it. My particular incident, when it
    happened, it was the night before, and then when I woke up that
    next morning, I was so traumatized, if I could have crawled
    underneath the carpet, so help me, God, I would have. And I was
    afraid for my own safety. So even though I had read or saw
    somewhere that there was a doctor on board, I would be damned
    if I was going to go to him.
        So, in retrospect, even though I didn't report it on the
    cruise line, I am glad I didn't. I think I did right. My
    instincts served me right by just getting off there, and
    everything in my instinct said ``Get off and get out of there
    in one piece,'' so that is what happened.
        Mr. Halloran. Thank you.
        Ms. Shaffer.
        Ms. Shaffer. I really can't remember. That wasn't my
    complaint, about the lack of security. It was the way it is
    handled, their procedures of how they handle, and how they
    cover up, and how they listen to you to find the loopholes to
    cover up what happened so that they continue to look good.
        Mr. Shays. I am not clear by your response. They look for
    ways to?
        Ms. Shaffer. They look for ways to weasel out of taking
    responsibility for helping solve the crime.
        Mr. Shays. Can you give me an example of what you mean?
        Ms. Shaffer. Well, for instance, when I took my daughter 3
    days in a row, asking for an examination, a rape examination,
    and the doctor would just sit and stare at me, and sit and
    stare, and stare, and stare, and stare, and never anything--he
    said to me that I was traumatizing my daughter.
        Mr. Shays. Right. Let me ask you this. Your daughter came
    in to see the doctor, but she was requesting that she not be
    examined?
        Ms. Shaffer. No, she wasn't requesting. She was just in
    denial that she had been raped. She was----
        Mr. Shays. Just so that I can see the scene.
        Ms. Shaffer. She did not refuse to be examined.
        Mr. Shays. Was your daughter with you when you went in?
        Ms. Shaffer. She was with me.
        Mr. Shays. Right, that is what I thought, but--so she was
    neither saying yes or no. She was just traumatized.
        Ms. Shaffer. She was just saying no, she hadn't been raped,
    that nothing had happened. And she was crying, but she was
    willing to be examined.
        Mr. Shays. OK. And he or she chose not to----
        Ms. Shaffer. He chose not to.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        Mr. Halloran. Mr. Pham, Mr. Carver, in sort of different
    circumstances, but if you could describe in a little more
    detail, the problems with getting information from the company
    about, in the case of your daughter and your parents? In a
    sense they had lost precious cargo you had put on those ships.
    What was the explanation that was given as to where your loved
    ones were?
        Mr. Carver. When we finally got to them, they had disposed
    of her personal items. If you look at their regulations they
    say they are to keep items for 3 months. We are talking to them
    in 3 weeks. We asked up front was there any video of Merrian,
    and the answer was, ``We only keep them for 2 or 3 weeks, and
    you got here too late.''
        Mr. Halloran. Excuse me. I just want to be clear on that.
    They actually had videos. They knew your daughter was missing.
    They had videos and they destroyed the videos?
        Mr. Carver. Well, let me finish the story. In fact, that is
    what happened. They denied to us that they had videos, and they
    said they only keep them 2 or 3 weeks and we got there too
    late. We sent somebody on the ship on November 4th, a
    detective. They said the same thing. There was no review of the
    video concerning Merrian, and we only keep them 2 or 3 weeks.
    But if you look at the documents in my supplemental statements,
    on their stationery, on September 23rd, Security is reviewing
    the videos. And if we look at documents written that they wrote
    on April 9th, the videos are not destroyed in 2 or 3 weeks,
    they are on a 30-day cycle. So in other words, on the 26th day
    of a 30-day cycle, they were looking at the videos.
        Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this. Did they say any of this in
    writing?
        Mr. Carver. It is all in writing.
        Mr. Shays. So their own information----
        Mr. Carver. Yes. We have their own internal documents. They
    are sitting on the table over here, where they are reviewing
    the videos, which they said they did not review, and it is all
    documented. Very discouraging. And, of course, those documents
    which we have brought, they are talking to the steward. Three
    times he is talked to by the head of the hotel, saying, ``Do
    not discuss this with anybody. It is a serious problem.'' And
    he is reporting that to the management in Miami, FL.
        Well, for us to finally get to that individual took us
    until January 16th to get his testimony, only after we had gone
    to court, gotten court orders, because they were clearly
    setting up in the 3rd week in September, the cover over, and
    they also discussed how they are disposing of her items. Now,
    why would you dispose of items, a brown manila envelope,
    putting them maybe in lost and found--they don't know what they
    did with it--why would you destroy it? They knew who the
    passenger was.
        Mr. Halloran. So you first contacted the company at what
    level?
        Mr. Carver. Well, we called Miami. Then a representative of
    risk management came back to us the third week in September.
        Mr. Halloran. And then what, and then the lawyers got
    involved? Because Mr. Leonard describes another kind of series
    of people and offices he heard from. Did you hear from a number
    of people in the chain?
        Mr. Carver. Well, we basically were talking to a woman
    named Katie with risk management. She was the go-between,
    literally telling us lies for the whole time. She was the one
    person that everybody zeroed into. When detectives went to her
    in October, said, ``Was there any incident on this ship that
    the steward have reported?'' She said, ``No, absolutely none.''
    There is a copy of a letter that I wrote to the board of
    directors giving her quote to our detective. They wouldn't even
    tell us the name of the steward. But she was clearly, I can
    only say, lying to them, because in fact, they had talked to
    them. There had been a hearing on the ship. They had fired the
    supervisor for gross dereliction of duties, and she is
    pretending that nothing happened.
        In a report to the FBI, dated September 30th, she makes a
    statement, ``There was no Oscar, Oscar, Oscar emergency on the
    ship.'' Well, there had been. They lost a passenger. They had
    had meetings, and yet that is what she is reporting to the FBI.
    It is my understanding, to write a misleading statement to the
    FBI is illegal, to deceive them. That, in and of itself is a
    crime.
        Mr. Halloran. It is called obstruction of justice in many
    places.
        Mr. Carver. That is what I said in my report.
        Mr. Halloran. Mr. Pham, what was your experience?
        Mr. Pham. Well, I have very little to say, because after
    the ship came back and they washed it, and they loaded the next
    group of passengers and they said. Since then we heard from
    them only once. The FBI concluded the investigation the end of
    August, supposedly couldn't find any foul play. We're still
    working on getting the detail of that investigation, but pretty
    much, you know, I don't think Carnival even knew we were there.
    I don't think they know who we are. I don't think that they
    know they have two passengers that left with them, paid the
    full fare, never came back, I don't think so.
        The one time I finally got through one time to the office
    of the president of the Carnival Cruise Lines in Miami and
    talked to the Customer Service Manager from the Office of the
    President, and after 2 days, and she said, ``Well, let me check
    with Legal before I can talk to you,'' and she got back, and
    now I learned a new term. In the dictionary it is called
    ``lawyer up.'' Because that is exactly all she cared for when
    she called me back, to say that, ``Mr. Pham, we couldn't tell
    you what to do. We couldn't tell you what happened. Very rare.
    This never happened before.'' Let me tell you, it happened in
    December 2004. Somebody disappeared on one of their ship. And
    they could have told me, ``Well, this is what you should do
    next,'' and so on. They refused to acknowledge we were there.
        You know what? Not a lot of people have the means to go
    after these cruise lines. My parents lost. They worked very
    hard for their money, and it is not fair for the State--and for
    all of us just to find out the truth, we have to hire an
    attorney, we have to pay all of that money to find out what
    happened to my mother and my father? That is not the America
    that we came to that we learned, and so that is all I have.
        Mr. Shays. Let me just use your comment as just a matter
    that I want to state for the public record. When we started
    this investigation because of George Smith and Ms. Hagel Smith,
    we wanted to know what had happened and how they were treated.
    And in the course of doing that, Mr. Carver came to our first
    hearing, and I felt his story was beyond my comprehension,
    basically a father who has to spend money to find out what
    happened to his daughter. And all along the way there were
    breakdowns. It wasn't that the steward didn't do his or her
    job. Was it a man or woman, the steward, do yo know?
        Mr. Carver. He was a man.
        Mr. Shays. Did his job, and he reported it to a supervisor.
    And then we are being told, well, basically, that was a
    mistake, and he was let go, a serious mistake. You would think
    at that moment in time, there would be just absolute full
    cooperation. You would think almost that the head of the
    company would come on bended knee to you, Mr. Carver, and say,
    ``Whatever happened to your daughter, we apologize. Now, how
    can we cooperate so that you don't go through any more pain?''
    Even in fact, obviously, Mr. Carver, if your daughter had
    committed suicide, but that is irrelevant to your being able to
    get the facts you need.
        So the point I want to make to all of you is, one, we want
    to help each of you in the cases where it is still outstanding,
    get all the information. We want to ensure that the cruise line
    fully and completely cooperates. Their failure to cooperate
    with you is a message to this subcommittee that they have
    things to hide, which only means that we will be more vigorous
    in pursuing this investigation. Their willingness to cooperate
    with you and with this subcommittee means that we can work
    together and solve whatever problems may exist.
        So, one, I would want you to know that this subcommittee is
    asking publicly all the ships involved and the cruise lines
    involved to fully, completely, without hesitation, without any
    reluctance, cooperate and ease your pain, and help you. But
    also in the process they will help themselves.
        Mr. Pham, the implication that we have received and read
    was that your mom and dad committed suicide, that their shoes
    were strategically placed, and it appeared like they just
    jumped overboard. There is nothing that you have told me that
    would indicate they would have any reason to, particularly at
    an event like that event. No note saying goodbye.
        Mr. Pham. As a matter of fact, I was in California a month
    ago to open--finally, we got the death certificate. I filed a
    petition with the Superior Court of Orange County, CA, and I
    got 5 percent chance that a judge would approve. And instead of
    waiting for 5 years, I finally got the death certificate and
    opened the safe deposit a month ago, and everything,
    everything--and not only that, but----
        Mr. Shays. Finish everything, everything, what?
        Mr. Pham. Everything was so normal, and they lived their
    lives, and we have so many unfinished--Mom and Dad had so much
    unfinished business. One thing I didn't verbally mention
    earlier, but it is in the record, that last November my parents
    left--when we left our mother land, our Vietnam, for 30 years,
    and it took them 30 years to finally have enough closure,
    enough closure, wanting to go back to Vietnam. I travel there a
    lot of times for charity work and business, and finally, in
    December 2004, Mom and Dad said--I asked them again, I said,
    ``Mom, Dad, are you ready?'' And I could tell in their voice
    that, yes, I am going with you next time.
        Since then, 2 days before Mom and Dad boarded the flight to
    Chicago for their vacation, and Mom was on the phone with me
    and worried about some dumb thing, that, you know, when we
    arrive in Saigon in November, you know, if the car is big
    enough for our luggage. For them, waiting that long and go back
    and see their relatives, that is something that they would not
    want to leave this Earth before doing that.
        And I had the honor and privilege, bringing my parents
    back, which had never happened to me. It is something that I
    will never forget the rest of my life. You know, nine
    grandchildren, and on top of that, after I opened the safe
    deposit box a month ago and saw everything was normal, the last
    time my father went in that safe deposit box was in December
    2004, so nothing planned. I forgot--I didn't forget. It is in
    the record also--that we have a grandfather--we left our
    country without anything, and so family means a lot to us. My
    grandfather is 94-years-old. He is laying in bed now in a
    nursing home. He couldn't move. He couldn't speak. And I have
    no idea what is going through his mind about what happened to
    his children that never came back to him. Mom and Dad the only
    people that took care of my grandfather, and now they
    disappeared, they are gone. And none of us live in California.
        You know, we have so many things going for us that, you
    know.
        Mr. Shays. So the bottom line to this is there was no
    indication earlier on, no previous attempts to end life.
        Mr. Pham. You know what? If Mom and Dad did that--and they
    are not that type--that would be the cruelest thing, to go on a
    cruise, a mother's day present, with your daughter and your
    granddaughter and left them. You know, my parents, we--I was
    waiting for somebody to----
        Mr. Shays. Let me just say you have the opportunity to say
    whatever you want. I was thinking of your imagery of having to
    be in the open sea with your parents leaving Vietnam and how
    dangerous that was, and the incredible, unbelievable
    circumstance that finds you on the water again, where your
    parents are now missing, and the way you appear to be treated.
    I just want to say to you that we will ask whatever question we
    need to ask to give you an opportunity to say what needs to be
    put on this congressional record under oath, under oath.
        Mr. Pham. Well, Mom and Dad look over us all the time, and
    I know they're looking over me today, and since they left, and
    so we have access to some information that's very important,
    I'm sure, to the cruise line, to everybody and to us, that the
    event happening immediately after the discovery of my parents'
    disappearance. And so, there's no way I could sit here, or
    anyone in this room could sit here, with the exception of the
    representative from the companies that operate these cruise
    lines, to say that what kind of procedures you have in place,
    and did you follow those procedures, and why didn't you?
    Because, see, there's no way for us to find out what happened
    to Mom and Dad if they goof from the very next second after
    they were told disappear. And I don't know if they goof on
    purpose, intentionally, unintentionally. We don't know. And
    maybe 1 day, justice can be done to our family, where we can
    sit face to face across and get the truth. And we've heard that
    word, the truth, over and over and over from that side and from
    this side. We want to know the truth. We can't change anything
    unless we know the truth.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        Mr. Carver, let me just put on the record, because it will
    be stated outside this hearing, your daughter evidently had
    tried to end her life at a previous time?
        Mr. Carver. Going back several years ago after divorce
    and--one time.
        Mr. Shays. So it is not your issue of whether or not she
    chose to end her life, or in fact, did, it is the issue that
    once she was determined missing, you and your family should
    have been notified immediately, and there should have been an
    effort first to find her, whether or not she had chosen to, if
    that was the case. So I think it is pretty much on the record.
    It is just an amazing story, both of your stories are amazing.
        Mr. Lynch, would you like some questions?
        Mr. Lynch. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. Let me give you time to ask questions.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to ask all of you. I have talked with folks
    that have been in this situation, and none of them approach the
    pain and the experiences that I hear about today from all of
    you, but the nub of this problem is there is no accountability,
    there is no liability. The incentives for the cruise line to
    hide information and to conceal information, and to not report,
    it is a financial incentive for them to do that, because if
    people found out, it would hurt their business. So there is a
    disincentive for reporting. There is a gap here. The FBI is not
    required, in a formal sense, to keep track of every single--
    even though safety of life at sea gives jurisdiction, and the
    maritime regs allow the FBI to exercise jurisdiction, the
    strength of that jurisdiction and their authority often depends
    upon the memorandum of agreement, the mutual assistance
    agreement with the individual country whose flag is being flown
    by that cruise ship.
        It seems to me that at the very beginning, and I want to
    hear your own thoughts on this, but at the very beginning we
    need to have someone, someone needs to be responsible for
    reporting these incidents, and there have to be grave
    consequences, grave consequences, from the captain of the ship
    to the operator. There has to be grave consequences when an
    incident occurs and it is not fully reported to begin with.
        In talking with other people, and trying to create this
    accountability, they have suggested different things to me, and
    I want to hear your input on it. Some have suggested that
    because there was no U.S. law enforcement on a ship, that there
    was really no accountability for a U.S. citizen. And people
    were saying to me, we should have at least one officer on a
    ship. If they are calling on a port in the United States of
    America, there should be a U.S. law enforcement person on that
    ship.
        Other people have said that when a ship returns and there
    is a passenger missing, there should be immediate removal of
    that captain subject to the investigation, and that would be a
    serious consequence to the cruise ship line in having their
    captain removed. Others have suggested, in taking children--and
    I know a number of incidents have occurred with children--is
    putting actual tracking devices on passengers when they come on
    the ship, so that in the event that someone does go overboard,
    and a couple of witnesses have said, we don't know if they made
    a mistake or whether there was some deliberate concealment here
    of the incident, and then they were embarrassed to go back and
    admit they had made a mistake.
        Also, I have heard in a similar case with some of the
    witnesses here about these confidentiality agreements, and do
    we simply, in part of our response say, where someone has gone
    missing, there shall be no settlement that contains a
    confidentiality agreement that puts a gag on innocent American
    citizens from reporting a horrible wrong that has been done to
    them.
        Again, going back to the reporting, make sure that it is
    mandatory, that it is reliable, and that people who are in your
    circumstance, my sisters, I have five sisters. They take
    cruises all the time with their kids. They are nuts about it.
    But in doing something like that with your family, there should
    be a report card, a report card of the ship line that you are
    traveling with, so that you can--you know, they have it on the
    Internet quite a bit now, different companies, a score card, a
    consumer report on incidents and people who have been--well,
    people who are very happy with the service they received,
    versus people who are dreadfully disappointed with the way they
    had been treated as a customer, and that is another mandatory,
    sort of shining a spotlight, an open air type reporting
    requirement that could be available to people.
        I want to hear your thoughts in terms of any of those ideas
    that you think may be warranted, Mr. Carver?
        Mr. Carver. Well, we've proposed many items here, but there
    is a simple solution that can solve the cruise line problem
    tomorrow. There's something called a board of directors of that
    cruise line, and let's take the case of Royal Caribbean. They
    are under the New York Stock Exchange Rules. They have a
    fiduciary responsibility, in my opinion--I'm not a lawyer--to
    protect the safety of the members of the crew.
        Now, in the case of Merrian, there's a letter sitting over
    there. I wrote the board of directors. I gave them the
    depositions. I proved the cover-up. Now, when you're on the New
    York Stock Exchange, after Enron, I don't think you can clearly
    ignore those issues. You can't just push it down to somebody in
    risk management and say, ``Hey, take care of Carver.'' You have
    a fiduciary responsibility for the safety of those passengers,
    as I see it as a non-lawyer.
        Now, they could make changes immediately, and if in fact,
    they realize that they have that fiduciary responsibility, they
    might act a little bit quicker. They might take some steps they
    haven't taken. There's a company called Enron that took a lot
    of time to cover up the books, and the board said, ``We didn't
    know what was happening.'' I think the accounting rules have
    changed. I'm not sure you can do that anymore.
        Mr. Pham. You know, I found something very interesting a
    couple days ago. I went to the State Department travel Web
    site, travel warning. And there's a couple warnings there I bet
    you a lot of people in this room wouldn't know. One is the
    spring break coming up in the Bahamas area, and one is the
    spring break coming up in Mexico. You know, that's the duty of
    the State Department.
        Now, why did I look up? Because after my parents'
    disappearance, I worked a lot with the Bureau of Consular
    Affairs, try to get presumption of death on the high seas
    document from the State Department to help us with the death
    certificate issues. But, you know, what's the difference? If
    these ships leave our port, bring U.S. citizens into
    international waters, to other shores and things of that--and
    these incidents happen on these ships. And if they don't report
    it, if they don't have to report it, if nobody monitor it, they
    don't have a--keep the statistics--they don't have to do all
    those things. Why there's an exemption there? We don't
    understand. So maybe you can take that into consideration.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir.
        Ms. Shaffer.
        Ms. Shaffer. Well, I would just like putting up a big sign
    when you enter the ship, saying, ``Enter at your own risk.'' I
    think they're very dangerous. I think the statistics that they
    have are bogus, and they don't hold up. And it's very
    dangerous.
        What I would like to see is that the public, the general
    public becomes aware of the dangers, and when you take a trip
    aboard a cruise, that you're informed of the dangers, and that
    there's regulations put on children, curfews. Children should
    not be being served. My daughter was 18 when we were on the
    ship, and she was getting drunk every night in the disco. She
    was being served alcohol. So when I was on the cruise, I felt
    perfectly safe, and so I had no idea of the risks or the
    dangers, or this would not have happened. I am not a liberal
    mom. I'm a very conservative mom, and I pay close attention to
    my children, and this should have never happened. I just
    blinked my eye, and there it is.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
        Ms. Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Yes, I would like to add a couple things. No. 1,
    I think that idea of a microchip is just outstanding, just
    personally. I mean I know this is an outrageous statement, and
    you're probably going to think it's outrageous, but I mean,
    there could feasibly be a serial killer on one of these ships.
    Because they're not reporting to one main data base, and when
    somebody gets terminated, like in my case, and they just go
    back to work for another cruise line, I mean you could have a
    very serious criminal on one of these cruise ships. So anyway,
    I just really like the idea of the microchip because I just
    think that's a good idea as a tracking device.
        Also, the U.S. Marshals, just to give you a little bit of
    background, I have 12 years in banking, and when I was a
    teller, and I know this sounds simple, but we had these secret
    shoppers. So when I waited on somebody I didn't know if they
    were a secret shopper and they were checking me to see if I was
    doing my job, or if it was just a regular customer. I think by
    having U.S. Marshals on those ships, even if it's random, I
    think it would be of great importance because those bartenders,
    those--I don't know how many, 52, or how many other bartenders
    are on the ship, they wouldn't know if they were, you know,
    serving a U.S. Marshal or if they were serving a Janet Kelly.
    So I just think that would be huge. I think it would just
    totally raise the accountability. I just think it would be
    awesome. So that's just my thoughts.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Ms. Kelly.
        Mr. Leonard.
        Mr. Leonard. I see that there are really two broad kinds of
    questions or issues. One concerns cruise line safety and the
    company's treatment of guests on the one hand and the threat of
    terrorism on the other. Now, I think to some extent both would
    be somewhat lessened as a problem if there was an agency to
    which the Congress directed the companies to provide all
    documented cases of crime which could then be made available to
    the general population through a Web site or which travel
    agents would be aware of.
        Second, this would obviously require some sort of change in
    Federal law, because to some extent it seems the lack of
    accountability is part of the reason why these things take
    place, and that lack of accountability seems to be a byproduct
    of either the companies thumbing their noses at Federal law, or
    simply that there is a legal twilight zone where they can pick
    and choose what laws they will follow.
        Part of public disclosure would be to make sure that
    passengers who have a documented case of a crime on shipboard
    get a copy of their report and the security officer's report,
    who investigates. Now, the business about the key cards is, I
    think, rather crucial. When my wife and I were in France in the
    summer of 2001, we noticed virtually everywhere we were, when
    you gave a waiter a credit card, he had a little machine, and
    he ran the card through it right in front of you, gave the
    receipt, which you signed, and your own receipt, right there
    and then, so that on ships that kind of technology, which is
    well proven, should be used so your credit card is never out of
    your hands when you use it on the ship. Remember, on a ship you
    are not in a hotel. You just cannot walk away and go down the
    street.
        Now, insofar as terrorism is concerned, I think there has
    to be, obviously, some kind of tightening up concerning
    security, and this is at the larger level, the macro level, but
    also at the micro level. If you can get into somebody's cabin
    because of a key card being played with, then you cannot only
    steal property and personal identities, you can also place
    contraband inside that cabin, which might go off, as it lands
    in Bayonne, NJ in the Port of New York, or it is smuggled into
    the country by some unwitting guest on a ship because he or she
    doesn't even know there's something in his luggage. So the
    whole question of control of the key cards and making sure that
    they are the least likely way to lose your security, that
    anybody can somehow get into your cabin, has to be ensured. And
    there is no reason why every bit of information to potential
    thieves and others is on these key cards, telling them when
    you're going to dine, so if you know when somebody is going to
    go and eat, you can know exactly when the person is not going
    to be in the cabin.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Leonard.
        Mr. Mulvaney.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I like the sea marshal idea, and we could
    charge the passengers for creating employment. But I think the
    real problem lies with the DOHSA law, and that means
    accountability of the ships. Some of the current laws have no
    incentive whatsoever to reform or to do anything----
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Mulvaney, talk a little slower. Given that
    he is from Boston, he understands you really well.
        Mr. Lynch. I could translate for you, Mr. Mulvaney.
    [Laughter.]
        Mr. Mulvaney. I will go back to the start. The sea marshal
    thing I like, and some of the other good ideas, but I think the
    problem lies with the DOHSA law itself. The DOHSA law affords
    the cruise industry too much blanket coverage. If you change
    this the ships have an incentive themselves to enforce certain
    laws on the ships and make sure that they no longer have that
    protection. Their insurance premiums naturally will rise. You
    know what I'm saying? But they will certainly have a fear of
    going out and doing anything, that if it ends up in U.S. court,
    they will be held responsible.
        As far as somebody on board the ship needs to be in charge.
    If we have the captain in charge, the captain works for the
    cruise company. We're going to have the fox minding the hen
    house. He's there to make a profit for the ship. In Mr.
    O'Brien's specific incident, you had marked everywhere, ``No
    alcohol served to minors.'' You had it on the ship's contract,
    no alcohol. It is the law here in the United States, no
    alcohol. Yet the ship's bartenders serve minors alcohol. We've
    heard that statement from another guest here today also.
        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. We have two more panels, but I do want to just
    ask a few more questions, and I thank you for your patience.
        Ms. Kelly, I am going to ask you some questions that I do
    not know the answers to. I am not trying to prove your point or
    disprove your point, but I do want to understand. I don't want
    to assume.
        Ms. Kelly. OK.
        Mr. Shays. You say that you were drugged. Was that
    documented that you were drugged, or you believe you were
    drugged?
        Ms. Kelly. OK, both. Well, no. I tried to document it. I
    went, and when I reported it to the hospital, I mean, it was a
    9-hour emergency room.
        Mr. Shays. Talk a little slower.
        Ms. Kelly. OK. It was a 9-hour emergency room visit. It was
    very traumatic.
        Mr. Shays. And this was right after you got off the ship?
        Ms. Kelly. No. When I got off the ship, I got in a cab, I
    went to the airport. And there, I think the realization of
    everything that had happened, plus the effects of the drug, I
    was very sick, I was very traumatized, so I was hysterical, if
    you will.
        Mr. Shays. Were you with other family members?
        Ms. Kelly. Yes, I didn't have any family members, and I
    didn't really have any close, close friends. They were just
    neighbors and acquaintances. So anyway, what I did is I tried
    to contact my counselor, because I had been seeing a counselor
    from when we had lost our daughter.
        Mr. Shays. Yes.
        Ms. Kelly. But I couldn't reach her, and who I ended up
    reaching was my best friend from sixth grade, and she said,
    ``Janet, get on an airplane.'' I told her what happened. I'm
    crying, sobbing. If I would see somebody in an airport terminal
    like myself, I would have been taking their hand and taken them
    to an authority. But unfortunately, nothing was done at that
    point, because there I was on safe ground.
        Mr. Shays. But you can describe that you were somewhat in a
    fog as this----
        Ms. Kelly. I know I was drugged. Mr. Shays, I know I was
    drugged, for a number of reasons. No. 1, I only had two drinks.
        Mr. Shays. Was there anyone else that was with you that saw
    you being taken away?
        Ms. Kelly. No. But you know what? Interestingly enough,
    after I was drugged and I came back--and what happened was,
    this is all right before dinner. Like I said, I'm not a heavy
    drinker. I came back to my cabin, and it's weird how it is when
    you're drugged, but it's kind of like you're in a dream state.
    That's the best way I can describe it. I made my way back to my
    cabin, and I passed out face forward on the bottom bunk, wasn't
    even my bunk, and I was just out cold.
        But to answer your question, I know I was drugged because
    I've read the effects of the drug, and I was very sick for 3
    days after. I probably only had one meal. I had severe
    diarrhea. I know I was drugged. There's just no doubt in my
    mind.
        Mr. Shays. I hear you. It just helps if it can be
    documented.
        Ms. Kelly. Exactly right, exactly right. No, I understand
    that.
        I'm sorry. What was the rest of your question?
        Mr. Shays. But you basically told me that----
        Ms. Kelly. Oh, yes.
        Mr. Shays. And there was no proof of semen or anything like
    that?
        Ms. Kelly. Well, you know what? Here's the thing. If they
    had it, they just dismissed it because of the fact that they
    said--see, he admitted it. As a matter of fact----
        Mr. Shays. Oh, he did admit it.
        Ms. Kelly. The bartender admitted it, and he actually said,
    ``Did I hurt her?'' This was the morning after. The girl I was
    with, one of the gals I was with, went and approached him.
        Mr. Shays. So what he admitted to was breaking company
    policy, but he did not--this was an employee of the--so company
    policy is that you don't interact with----
        Ms. Kelly. Oh, no.
        Mr. Shays. So he's admitting to breaking company policy,
        Ms. Kelly. Correct.
        Mr. Shays. So grounds for dismissal, but he is not
    admitting that there was a rape that took place, obviously.
        Ms. Kelly. What he says, and what the FBI said, is that he
    said it was consensual. He doesn't deny that we had
    intercourse.
        Mr. Shays. Boy, that would drive me crazy.
        Ms. Kelly. So the thing that makes me crazy about the whole
    thing is if it would have happened here, I mean, there would
    have been repercussions. I mean he would have been prosecuted.
    I would have made sure of it. But because of how--anyway, to
    answer your question though about the hospital, I had called a
    rape counselor, which I'm glad I did it because she told me
    what to do, and she guided me. When I went to the hospital I
    was educated on rape. I was like, OK, you have to take my
    blood, and you have to hurry up, and there's people having
    heart attacks and all this other stuff going on.
        Mr. Shays. May I ask you, well, the bottom line is you
    experienced what evidently a lot of college students
    experience.
        Ms. Kelly. Correct.
        Mr. Shays. But you were older than a college student.
        Ms. Kelly. But you know what? The unfortunate thing is that
    drug, it leaves your blood system right away, and that's why
    they use it, OK. And it would have shown up in the urine, and
    for some reason the hospital lost my urine sample. Had they had
    that, I would have had proof, and so it is very unfortunate.
    But I did it. I told them that they had to take my urine, they
    had to take blood. I mean I totally knew what I was doing.
        Mr. Shays. You didn't have an adviser or anyone with you?
        Ms. Kelly. An adviser?
        Mr. Shays. You didn't have anyone with you when you went to
    the hospital?
        Ms. Kelly. You know what? I had a co-worker that actually
    grabbed me and said, ``Let's go.''
        Mr. Shays. She took you, but she was not----
        Ms. Kelly. Yes. And then I had a call. My husband, who had
    just had open heart, and here I had to tell him what happened,
    just----
        Mr. Shays. Takes a lot of courage. Thank you.
        Mr. Leonard, I don't have many questions for you because
    you pretty much documented everything you went through. What
    you document most, from my standpoint, is that you would not
    have shown up in crime statistics, which is one of the problems
    that I have. I don't have much faith in the crime statistics.
        So I just want you to know why I don't have questions for
    you. In part it was your professor-like thoroughness and
    assistance to speak even longer than I wanted, but you covered
    the territory.
        Mr. Leonard. Well, frankly, I felt I had to because this
    would the first and last time. I'm not planning to go on any--
    --
        Mr. Shays. What pleases me most is it's the first time you
    smiled all day today too. [Laughter.]
        Because I mean, one of the things that you will go to the
    funny farm with the incredible aggravation you have had to go
    through, because, frankly, the crime was committed. All they
    had to do acknowledge the crime was committed. They couldn't
    probably solve the crime. You had a right to expect them to
    make a good faith effort. So all they did basically was stiff-
    arm you and add to your misery, when in the end, taking the
    other tack would have maybe gotten you back as a customer
    because you would have basically said, ``You know what? There
    was a screw-up and so on, but thank you for treating me with
    respect,'' and you obviously were not treated with respect, and
    I am sorry about that, obviously.
        Mr. Leonard. Well, ordinarily one doesn't----
        Mr. Shays. Put the mic down a little bit so I hear you.
        Mr. Leonard. Ordinarily one doesn't generalize from one
    specific anecdote.
        Mr. Shays. Ms. Kelly, would you help him out because you
    are really good at this. OK.
        Mr. Leonard. Thank you. Ordinarily one doesn't generalize
    from one specific example, but our case of this theft is a kind
    of classic example of everything being done wrong, and the
    refusal of the multibillion dollar corporation to simply admit
    that there might have been some responsibility on the part of
    the ship company, the personnel, and that the company accepts
    the possibility that a mistake might have been made. We're not
    talking about the kind of situations that have been presented
    here. This is horrifying. I mean this was simply a relatively
    small grand larceny of our property, but in the grand scheme of
    things, for a multibillion dollar corporation this is not even
    small potatoes.
        For them to go out of their way to deny not only to me, but
    to the Federal Maritime Commission, that we even reported the
    crime on the ship, and we faxed this person, Betty Taillefer,
    the signed statement--which by the way, when you look at it,
    because you have a copy of it, at the end of their own form
    they have ``retain for 1 year.'' So the probability is that
    this is a fairly common kind of experience, and they jettison
    this stuff.
        Mr. Shays. I can understand in one respect that if the FBI
    doesn't want to investigate a crime committed, a certain dollar
    amount, the fact that the crime took place needs to be
    documented in all thefts. The cruise industry likes to compare
    themselves to towns, and if that is the case, when $100 is
    stolen, it is a crime, and it is reported and there is this
    statistic. And whether it is $100, $1,000, $5,000, $6,000,
    $10,000, it all needs to be reported.
        Mr. Mulvaney, the bottom line is you were on board the
    ship; is this correct?
        Mr. Mulvaney. Yes, that's correct.
        Mr. Shays. And your experience was, one, you did not know
    who to contact right away, correct?
        Mr. Mulvaney. Correct.
        Mr. Shays. There is no phones periodically that say, ``If
    emergency, call this number?''
        Mr. Mulvaney. No. When you first get on the ship the first
    day, they do what they call a muster station, where they bring
    everybody down to the deck where the lifeboats is, and they
    explain to everybody at that point in time what goes on in the
    event of a fire on the ship or if you have to abandon ship on
    the lifeboats.
        Mr. Shays. I mean if you are in a building and there is a
    fire, you can pull the fire alarm, a warning, and people can
    get out. If you are on a bus, you are on a subway, you are on a
    train, the bottom line is you have something to pull, you know
    where to go to stop the bus or train or whatever. On a boat----
        Mr. Mulvaney. There is a fire alarm system on the boat.
        Mr. Shays. Fire alarm, yes. But if they have a fire alarm
    there is no system that would enable you--if you saw someone go
    overboard--I was just thinking if I was just there and I saw
    someone overboard, I wouldn't know where to run to, but I have
    never been on board a ship. So I am wanting to know if--my
    parents have been on many and love cruising--but what I am
    asking is, there was nothing that you were made aware of that
    if someone was overboard, you contact this person immediately,
    and then they would hopefully have a better chance of locating
    that person. They don't have such a----
        Mr. Mulvaney. No, there was no procedure for the passengers
    set in place, nor do I think there was any procedure for the
    staff of the cruise line in place after the incident happened
    because they seemed somewhat confused about the issue also.
        Mr. Shays. We have been joined by Mr. Mica. Mr. Mica, I am
    going to ask just two more questions, but do you have questions
    you would like to ask as well?
        Mr. Mica. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. It doesn't have to be quick.
        Let me go to Mr. Mica first, and then we will just close
    up.
        Mr. Mica, you have the floor as long as you would like.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am a member of the
    full committee, but not the subcommittee.
        Mr. Shays. You are welcome and we appreciate you being
    here.
        Mr. Mica. But as you know, Mr. Chairman, I represent the
    State of Florida, and I came in a little bit late, didn't have
    a pleasant experience with my travel, even though I am chairman
    of the Aviation Subcommittee. [Laughter.]
        But that is a matter for another hearing. [Laughter.]
        Just one of my concerns. There have been some serious
    incidents reported here, and tragedies reported, and it is a
    slow news day, and they are picked up. I woke up this morning
    in Florida, highly recommend it if you want to travel
    someplace, absolutely gorgeous. But woke up this morning and
    turned on the news, and almost every channel, the cruise
    industry. I was very concerned. I am concerned about the
    welfare of people who have had some sort of a problem with a
    cruise experience, and I appreciate this hearing paying
    attention to any of those problems, and maybe some improvements
    that may be necessary in reporting or whatever. But coming from
    the State of Florida, it is one of our biggest industries. We
    have millions and millions of people, hundreds of thousands of
    jobs.
        And I don't think people should leave the hearing and think
    that the cruise industry is not concerned, and in some way the
    cruise industry or your experience is typical of the experience
    that millions and millions of people have had in cruises. There
    are unfortunate incidences. We have a summer place up in the
    mountains, and people go camping. We have had people killed,
    missing, abducted, raped, attacked in camping incidents, most
    of it national park service area that is patrolled by national
    park folks. I also don't represent Disney, used to when I was
    in the State legislature. And we have had incidents at all of
    our theme parks and the surrounding areas and attractions,
    unfortunately, some of them even worse than what has been
    described here.
        Again, my concern is that this hearing doesn't project the
    image that this is something that occurs every day, or the
    industry is not concerned about, again, some of the problems
    that have been raised. The fact is that, again, we have lower
    percentages of incidents of any of the types of activity or
    incidents that you have described today here in the general
    population. Is that not correct? Maybe we will go down----
        Mr. Mulvaney. Like you, Mr. Mica, I am from the same area
    of Florida, and I visited on many occasions Disneyland,
    Universal Studios, all the theme parks and done everything
    else, and the security in place in all these standard land-
    based locations is far greater and far exceeds anything which
    is----
        Mr. Mica. I would have to disagree with you. I see it every
    day. The only time I have seen the security that tight would be
    when we had the President there a couple of weeks ago. Most of
    these places hire part-time people or people who don't have a
    great deal of law enforcement. Most of them are not taking the
    hotel on the high seas, in international waters subject to
    various laws, so I would have to disagree with that.
        Mr. Leonard.
        Mr. Leonard. In the absence of reliable statistics, how can
    you be so certain that it isn't far higher than what the cruise
    lines report when they wish to report it. We don't have any
    idea. And when a grand larceny is not reported to any law
    enforcement agency, I start to wonder what happens to smaller
    crimes.
        Mr. Mica. Well, we do have, 305 crimes have been reported
    in the high seas over the past 5 years. Do you think it is
    necessary that we have some sort of official document for crime
    reporting?
        Mr. Leonard. Yes, precisely.
        Mr. Mica. On each cruise ship?
        Mr. Leonard. On each cruise ship, reported to an agency.
        Mr. Mica. I travel quite a bit. I have cruised quite a bit.
    I have never seen an industry that solicits more comments from
    their customers or passengers or clients than the cruise
    industry, none. In fact, they do everything but they harass you
    to get some response.
        Mr. Leonard. What's the problem with reporting? If there is
    no problem, then that would show up----
        Mr. Mica. So you are suggesting a uniform, a question--I am
    looking for something positive that we could do with the
    industry, but that, of course, wouldn't fit into any official
    reporting document. It would just be a volunteer thing. Do you
    think it should be required?
        Mr. Leonard. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. I mean required that the passenger fill it out.
        Mr. Leonard. Well, I am at the minimum of the opinion that
    documented cases of crimes on ships should be reported by each
    ship of each cruise line to a Federal agency and then made
    public. That way the cruise line is safe.
        Mr. Mica. I am not an attorney, and we have some attorneys
    on the next panel, I guess, and I don't know the implications
    of doing this, again, the settings and the different ports and
    also the registration on most of these ships is----
        Mr. Leonard. But this is the Congress of the United States,
    sir.
        Mr. Mica. Yes. We can pass a law, but is it enforceable,
    and I don't know that. I am not an attorney, but we do have a
    lot of them around here, fortunately or unfortunately.
        Mr. Mulvaney. Mr. Mica----
        Mr. Mica. I want to get the other responses.
        Mr. Mulvaney. I know. I just misunderstood what you said,
    and when you said to me you disagreed with me, does that mean
    you would advocate serving 15-year-olds alcohol at Disney
    World?
        Mr. Mica. No, but we have instances across the board, where
    15-years-old and people under the age of the legal age are
    consuming alcohol, not only on cruise ships and resorts, but
    throughout the world. If you would travel to Europe or some
    other destination, people drink without any restriction on age.
        Again, my question, I am looking for any improvements that
    we can make, and also ask the question about whether or not
    these are limited instances, or you see that other areas of
    resorts, entertainments, have more or less or the general
    public is more at risk. Ms. Kelly.
        Ms. Kelly. Yes. I just want to add--basically, I totally
    disagree with everything you have just said, but I think this
    is a very lawless environment. A number of these cruise lines
    are owned by foreign countries, so they don't answer to any
    laws. They cannot self police. They've done a horrible job of
    it. Have you personally been on any cruises?
        Mr. Mica. I have been on many, yes.
        Ms. Kelly. So it is your experience that you just think it
    is a wonderful----
        Mr. Mica. As a matter of fact, let me make a response. Not
    only is it a huge employer in the State of Florida, not only is
    it a great opportunity for vacation and entertainment, I think
    the industry as a whole has done an incredible job in taking
    what used to be exclusively the luxurious activity of the
    wealthy, the rich and famous--less than half a century ago,
    cruises were pretty much limited to people who had huge incomes
    or were very famous--and made it into something that the
    average person can safely, reliably enjoy, and that is the----
        Ms. Kelly. Safely, I don't think is an accurate word.
        Mr. Mica. I am sorry. I didn't interrupt you. But I think,
    again, if you look at the statistical average--and we can take
    incidents. I came also asking for any ways that we could
    improve the system, and the gentleman next to you, Mr. Leonard,
    has recommended possibly reporting or having some form of
    reporting. But again, I think the industry has done an
    incredible job of taking this experience--let me just share
    with the subcommittee one experience on a cruise ship that I
    went on, and again, Florida, we are very fortunate because you
    have cruise ports up and down, and you can access them
    relatively inexpensively, and enjoy a time with your family,
    and I was with my family.
        But I was on a cruise ship, and what I just said was
    brought home. I was walking down the hall toward dinner, and
    this gentleman approached me. And he was walking down the hall
    and he had a tie, he had it around his neck. And he said,
    ``Excuse me, sir.'' He said, ``Could you just help me for a
    second.'' I was sort of taken aback. He says, ``I drive a truck
    and I'm from Iowa. I've never had a tie on before.'' He says,
    ``I wanted to wear the tie to dinner, and I don't know how to
    tie it.''
        And at that point I thought, my God, here is an industry
    that has allowed common people to have an opportunity to have a
    great experience.
        Now, today's hearing doesn't focus on all those great
    experiences. It focuses on the rare exception. When you take 40
    million people who are passengers who have sailed on cruise
    ships. I am a strong, unabashed supporter of the industry. They
    are a strong supporter of me because I have always been a
    strong support of the industry. If there are problems, I think
    what we need to do is correct those problems.
        Ms. Kelly. OK. That's fine, and I've heard everything you
    said. I just want to interject before I lose my train of
    thought, if you don't mind. There's a couple of things. You've
    asked for recommendations. I don't know if you were here
    earlier, but----
        Mr. Mica. No, and I am sorry. My plane was really late.
        Ms. Kelly. One of the things that we had suggested was that
    passengers be required to wear a microchip or a band of some
    kind for tracing. Another suggestion that came up was using
    U.S. Marshals, and I said even randomly, because it would raise
    the accountability to the employees of these ships. No. 1, I
    also want to say too that most of these employees on the ship
    that I was from, they were from other countries, so they are
    not American crew members. They are coming in from other
    countries, Third World countries, with different standards,
    different morals, like my assailant was from Jamaica.
        Mr. Mica. Again, I think this hearing does highlight some
    of the differences in, say, the cruise ship industry and other
    activities. As to those recommendations, if I may respond, Mr.
    Chairman, first the microchip, maybe some day, not today. It is
    almost impossible. I have reviewed, as a senior member of the
    Transportation Committee, the security relating to cruise
    ships. I am not concerned about what goes on on board relating
    to these instances, and the passengers who are sailing, the
    typical passengers. My concern is more of a terrorist threat.
    An incident in which a cruise ship is used in that fashion and
    the failure of the U.S. Government, which is a Federal
    responsibility, to adequately protect and secure both the ports
    and the cruise ships. That is my concern, not focusing on some
    of the, again, issues that this subcommittee is focusing on.
        The second point, the U.S. Marshals. Again, I see very few
    industries that are more responsible as far as security is
    concerned. Let me give you an example. I chair Aviation. The
    Federal taxpayer right now underwrites the screening of every
    passenger in the United States by some $2 billion. It was not
    intended to be that way. The passenger was supposed to pay.
    They don't. It comes out of deficit spending. Right now we have
    a shortfall of $2 billion out of a $5.6 billion program. In
    addition, we pay all the costs of the U.S. Air Marshals. The
    plane I was just on had a U.S. Air Marshal on it. The cruise
    ships pay for their own security.
        In addition, they pay for their own law enforcement and
    security because they are traveling on the high seas and they
    are responsible for law enforcement on the high seas, once you
    leave the U.S. boundaries.
        I think they have done an excellent job, one, in security
    costs relating to terrorism, in screening passengers, in
    screening--it is very difficult--and I can tell you because I
    tried to do it--is to even bring your own booze on board. They
    even screen for alcoholic beverages that are not supposed to be
    in people's possession. I have never seen that at any resort,
    entertainment facility, whatever, and they pay all the costs
    for all of the above.
        Ms. Shaffer, go ahead.
        Ms. Shaffer. Mr. Mica, who is responsible for the security
    and safety of the passengers?
        Mr. Mica. Well, the cruise ship is.
        Ms. Shaffer. Then why don't they take care of business?
        [Applause.]
        Ms. Shaffer. There you go. So I agree with everything you
    said. The cruise ship, superficially it is----
        Mr. Shays. Ms. Shaffer, I am just going to interrupt you.
    It is important for us to have a sense of the audience, but
    this is a hearing, and we are going to really try to keep
    strict decorum.
        I would like to know, just because I want to make sure you
    are recognized, how many folks are here from the Cruise Victims
    Association? Just raise your hand if you are here.
        [Show of hands.]
        Mr. Shays. Well, we appreciate you being here, and I will
    spend time after this hearing to talk with you about anything
    you want me to know.
        But I also want to say that Mr. Mica is one of the most
    respected Members in Congress, and it is important that he
    share his views with you, and that you are very candid with
    him. So this kind of dialog that is taking place right now is
    probably more important than the dialog you will have with me.
        Mr. Mica, we truly appreciate you being here.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Ms. Shaffer. Thank you, Mr. Mica.
        Mr. Mica. I did come back to try to get some positive
    comments, and you asked the question----
        Ms. Shaffer. I would like to continue my thought.
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, you asked the question, who is
    responsible? And I said ultimately the cruise ship is for
    security on board the cruise ship, and as I mentioned, they
    take on responsibility for other types of security, port
    security, law enforcement on board the cruise ship. So there
    are different aspects of that, just to respond to you. Thank
    you.
        Ms. Shaffer. Well, superficially, the cruise industry looks
    great. You get on board, it seems to be very Americanized. You
    do see security on board the ship. You feel completely safe,
    and it's an illusion. It's a false sense of security, and your
    industry would do very well and would grow by adopting better
    protection and security for the public.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. I might
    respond too that, you know, some of security, even that the
    Federal Government does is an illusion. I just sat in on a
    classified briefing on aviation security on Thursday. It was a
    closed door hearing. I get the results back periodically. We
    test our system for security because it is a Federal system for
    aviation security. The failure rate is pretty dramatic. In
    fact, probably most of you would fall off the chairs if you
    understood how much of a failure that is, how much money we
    have spent, and we spent a fortune. I told you it cost us $5.6
    billion, plus $2 billion in deficit spending, to put that
    system in place that is not the kind of system that we should
    have. Making changes is very difficult, something I work on
    every day. I am here to look at how we can make the cruise
    experience an even better and safer experience.
        Mr. Pham.
        Mr. Pham. I do have a solution you're looking for. You
    know, my parents never came back from a cruise. There's nine
    grandchildren and five of us children, and I'm the only one
    here. It's very hard. It's not easy for us to be here today.
    We're here because we want to be part of a solution. We were
    part of the problem that cost to us now family, so we want to
    be here to become part of a solution. While I'm speaking for
    myself, I think I can speak for some other fellows of the new
    organization we formed, the International Cruise Victims
    Association. We went through--we were wronged, and that's why
    we're here to share the story.
        We're willing to sit down and work with the Congress and
    with the people in the industry, and come up with a way to
    better improve, as you said, the experience, to better taking
    care of the victims, to eliminate what we went through, because
    if you look at statistic, and everyone's been saying statistics
    and compare and all that, but, you know, you can't compare a
    cruise to a city. How about amusement park? How about
    Disneyland? Let's look at that percentage, because when I send
    my children to Disneyland, there's some expectation that I
    have. So let's stop talking about a 3,000-person, versus a
    floating city in the ocean. That's totally different, that's
    apples and oranges.
        Mr. Mica. My question, and I appreciate your comment and
    willingness to work with us, you described the problem as you
    see it. What is the solution you recommend?
        Mr. Pham. The solution is if people sit down with us. Since
    we founded this organization 2 months ago, we received hundreds
    of e-mails from crew members, sharing with us their experience
    as a crew member, what they think is right and wrong. We
    receive hundreds of e-mails from people all over the world,
    from Australia, from England, from Canada, and what happened to
    them. Well, if nobody listens, how can we fix the problem?
    Somebody has to listen, and we are willing to share that. We're
    willing to sit down and work together, and that's my solution.
        Mr. Mica. So far I've heard microchip of some sort, and
    like U.S. Air Marshals, and then we had a required form for
    reporting, or a standard form for reporting. Did you have a
    specific recommendation, Mr. Pham?
        Mr. Pham. Working together as a group, with the Congress
    and us.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Carver.
        Mr. Carver. I appreciate the opportunity. Earlier today in
    our testimony----
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Carver, I am just going to interrupt. Did
    you set this up as a lead to go right down the line? And you
    are a very patient man. I thought you might jump in in the very
    beginning, but you just timed it beautifully. So, Mr. Carver,
    you have the floor.
        Mr. Carver. We delivered to the subcommittee today a 10-
    point document of various changes to make to the cruise line
    industry. We're not going to change the cruise line industry,
    but if they were smart, they would take these various items
    that we have listed, and say, you know something? These makes
    sense. This will give the U.S. public a good feeling about
    being on a cruise ship.
        Would they cost much money? I don't think they would cost
    much money. So you're asking for many suggestions, I have it.
    But I want to give you another----
        Mr. Mica. I have the list of these, did you make this part
    of the record?
        Mr. Shays. Yes.
        Mr. Mica. Are there any other suggestions that you have?
        Mr. Carver. Can I just give another?
        Mr. Shays. You can have the floor to talk about this,
    because he asked you suggestions. You got three pages of
    suggestions, and if Mr. Mica wants to go through it, that's--I
    am going to ask you to go through it afterwards.
        Mr. Mica. Are there any other things that you think of that
    we need to pay attention to that haven't been raised?
        Mr. Carver. I have an analogy. This is kind of a different
    story, but let's say this is the Aviation Committee of the U.S.
    Congress. And an airline came to this committee and said, we
    have a new business plan. We're going to license the company in
    Liberia because that's very helpful. We don't have to pay
    Federal income tax. we're going to staff it with Third World
    people, but we want to fly out of New York City, we want to fly
    out of Miami, we want to fly out of Los Angeles. Once that
    airplane takes off, hey, we got a whole set of different rules.
    You may not understand them, but trust us. Now, over the past
    few years we've only lost 28 passengers, disappeared. We've had
    a couple of hundred people raped, but trust us.
        Would you think the American public would allow that
    airline to be licensed in this country to fly out of their
    major ports?
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, we do have very similar situations
    in aviation, and we do have many incidents, some reported and
    some unreported. Just to show you the way things are changing,
    54 percent of all the airline maintenance is done outside the
    United States today, and as we speak, you have more and more
    international competition, and will have. In fact, that is on
    the front burner today, of planes flying into the United
    States. One of the problems I have as chairman is, sometimes we
    don't have the same protections for Americans, even flying on
    another carrier into the United States. And I have gone and
    personally reviewed the security in cases such as the shoe
    bomber with Richard Reid, he had overridden by the French
    police allowing him to board the aircraft carrying explosives
    on his person in his shoe. So, yes, I face this all the time.
    We don't live in a cocoon, we live in an international arena.
        We could actually close down--and maybe that is what we
    should do--is close down the cruise lines from docking in any
    American ports. That would solve the problem, because they are
    international and we don't know everything that is going on
    with them, as you said, for ownership. But would that really
    solve the problem? And the answer is no.
        Mr. Carver. I can only answer it this way. If you were me
    and had a daughter disappear from a cruise line, and it goes
    unreported and it is covered up, I think you would have a
    different passion----
        Mr. Mica. Again, each of you have a case in which----
        Mr. Carver. Here are suggestions, lots of suggestions.
        Mr. Mica. I appreciate your suggestions that you have
    brought forth, the positive suggestions because I think my
    intent in being here is to look for positive things that we can
    do to make it safer for everyone, and improve the system. So,
    again, I appreciate the recommendations. Some of them may or
    may not be practical. We have to look at them. And then we can
    take a safe industry and make it even safer.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
        Mr. Shays. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman was
    provided as much time as he wanted, and I just wanted, Mr.
    Carver, for the record to show that in response to suggestions,
    you provided a three-page, single typed document from the
    International Cruise Victims Association. It is thorough. It is
    thoughtful. You said background checks, create a main data
    base, reporting all terminated individuals, employees, ensuring
    that the same employees will not be rehired by another cruise
    line. (A) Tighten security checks and screening of all
    employees. (B) Although the cost of a vacation cruise may
    increase, reliable personnel should be stationed on all decks
    at all times.
        Then just a second one, international police and U.S.
    Marshals. The international police force should be established
    at the expense of the cruise line, connected to Interpol or
    another international police organization. (A) Such authority
    should not be affiliated with the cruise line or its crew. (B)
    U.S. Marshals should be present on cruise ships. (C) When a
    crime is not reported to the appropriate authorities by the
    cruise line in a timely manner, substantial fines should be
    imposed. (D) All crimes must be made public, not voluntary but
    mandatory. (E) Require protocol for filing any form with
    incident, and to be immediately processed through specific
    channels.
        This is an extraordinary document you have provided, very
    responsive. What I am thinking, you are dealing with the loss
    of your daughter. You are dealing with the fact that you can't
    get basic information from the cruise line. They have treated
    you as if you were, in some cases, the perpetrator, not
    cooperated. It's an outrage. I thank you from the bottom of my
    heart for dealing with your grief, but also coming up with a
    very constructive document. It would take me a long time to
    read this document publicly. All of it will be for the record.
    It will be very helpful.
        And I really believe with all my heart and soul that Mr.
    Mica will appreciate this as well. He serves on the
    Transportation Committee. He can probably do more legislatively
    than I can do as an investigative committee. I view him as your
    friend, and he has voiced, obviously, concerns that this be an
    appropriate hearing, but one where we get at the truth. You
    provided a wonderful document on behalf of all of your members,
    so I salute all your members.
        It is still the first panel--is there anything that you all
    want us to put on the record before we go to panel two? Real
    quick, Mr. Leonard. Put the mic close to you. Prove to me you
    can do that.
        Mr. Leonard. I have one specific issue to raise in the
    interest of preventing terrorism. We noticed, my wife and I and
    others, foreign nationals, three and four from the same
    country, screening passengers and their baggage on the ship in
    Bermuda. That should never take place. Three and four foreign
    nationals from the same country screening baggage.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        Is there anyone else that would like----
        Mr. Leonard. I am not the only one who saw this.
        Mr. Shays. Anyone else who would like to--yes, Mr.
    Mulvaney?
        Mr. Mulvaney. Can I put the picture of the 15-year-old girl
    who was killed in the record?
        Mr. Shays. Yes, we will put that in the record.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.094

        Mr. Shays. How is she related to you, Mr. Mulvaney?
        Mr. Mulvaney. Distant, through marriage.
        Mr. Shays. It is very nice that you came to testify today.
        Mr. Pham, I want to say to you that how proud I am that you
    have become an American citizen. I am struck by how gracious
    you are, how thoughtful you are, how patient you are. You lost
    your mother and father. You love this country through and
    through, and I love the fact that you are a fellow citizen, and
    I appreciate your testimony more than you can know. I would say
    thank you to each and every one of you, but the image of you
    coming on a small boat to the United States eventually, is
    quite an image, and you have contributed wonderfully to the
    work of this Congress, all of you have, but I particularly want
    to thank you, Mr. Pham.
        Thank you very much. We are going to go to the second
    panel.
        In our second panel we have three panelists: Mr. Brett
    Rivkind, Rivkind, Pedraza & Margulies; Mr. Ron Gorsline, owner,
    Security Ocean Services; and Mr. Lawrence W. Kaye, Kaye Rose &
    Partners.
        Before you sit down, I will swear you in, and that is
    probably a logical way to do it.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Shays. Note for the record, our witnesses have
    responded in the affirmative.
        We attribute all three of you as experts on the cruise line
    industry. If you have in any way, just for the record, not so
    in any way it colors what you say, but it is just important,
    whether you are speaking independently or whether you have
    represented the cruise line industry, whether you do now, in
    other words, just so we get a sense of your perspective. And if
    we just run through that and then take your testimony, Mr.
    Rivkind.
        Mr. Rivkind. Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here.
    I am a maritime lawyer for the past 23 years in Miami, FL,
    handling cases mostly with the cruise ship industry. For the
    first 4 to 4\1/2\ years of my career, I represented cases
    brought against the cruise ship company. Since then, now I
    exclusively represent victims of accidents or crimes aboard the
    cruise ships.
        Mr. Shays. It is just helpful to know that.
        Mr. Gorsline.
        Mr. Gorsline. My name is Ron Gorsline. I am the owner and
    operator of Secure Ocean Services. My background is I have
    worked extensively in various different security areas, and I
    have worked in the cruise line industry for the last 3 years.
    Prior to that I have done work for the State Department as a
    security consultant on various contracts to protect different
    entities within the Government interests overseas. And prior to
    that, I had a 20-year military career in Special Operations in
    the Navy.
        Mr. Shays. So do you represent the cruise industry,
    families, or somewhere in between?
        Mr. Gorsline. I was asked to be here as an independent
    expert to kind of balance things out, based upon my experience
    in doing audits in the cruise industry for various different
    companies.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you. And you had met in my office as well
    earlier?
        Mr. Gorsline. Yes, sir. I gave you a full brief on my
    experiences with various different cruise companies.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Rivkind.
        Mr. Rivkind. Yes, Congressman Shays, I did forget to
    mention I am the attorney for the parents and the sister of
    George Smith.
        Mr. Shays. Yes, that is important to put on the record.
    Thank you.
        Mr. Kaye.
        Mr. Kaye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressmen. My name is
    Larry Kaye. I'm a maritime attorney. I've practiced maritime
    law for 27 years. During that time I've been immersed in
    representing cruise lines and the cruise line industry. I've
    also served as outside counsel to the International Council of
    Cruise Lines, and I started my career as a maritime attorney
    after a clerkship with one of our chief Federal judges.
        Mr. Shays. The bottom line is we have three experts in the
    cruise line industry and maritime travel, and we appreciate all
    three of you being here, and it is nice that you are so
    patient, and that you heard the first panel and what they had
    to say.
        Mr. Rivkind, we will let you start.
        Mr. Rivkind. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Shays. We are going to do a 5-minute. We are going to
    roll it over. I give a little bit more quarter to the second
    panel, since they sometimes have to go through a lot listening
    to the first. But we prefer, after you get in the second half,
    if you would bring it to a close. So 5 minutes. Then we will
    roll the clock over for another 5, but finish before the 10.

    STATEMENTS OF BRETT RIVKIND, RIVKIND PEDRAZA & MARGULIES, P.A.;
       RONALD J. GORSLINE, OWNER, SECURE OCEAN SERVICE, LLC; AND
      LAWRENCE W. KAYE, SENIOR PARTNER, KAYE, ROSE & PARTNERS, LLP

                       STATEMENT OF BRETT RIVKIND

        Mr. Rivkind. OK. Thank you, Congressman Shays. Good
    afternoon. Again, my name is Brett Rivkind, and as I described,
    I am a Miami maritime lawyer for 23 years. All of my work,
    almost exclusively at least, has involved the cruise ship
    industry and handling cases with the cruise ship industry.
        I am honored to have been asked to testify today before the
    subcommittee. I understand the purpose of this hearing is to
    address international maritime security, including law
    enforcement, and law enforcement is an important distinction,
    as Congressman Mica was talking about, terrorists and
    terrorism, and we are here, I believe, to discuss law
    enforcement on the cruise ships to protect passengers who
    actually board the cruise ships, which is a different issue,
    and passenger security, as well as the investigations of these
    incidents that occur to passengers, and I will limit my
    testimony to those areas, and these are major areas of concern
    at this time.
        Twenty-three years ago when I graduated law school and went
    into maritime law, I was intrigued with the complexity of the
    jurisdictional issues and the foreign nature of shipping, and
    the complexities, and they made for good law school exams.
    Today, 23 years later, we are on the second hearing, still
    discussing complex jurisdictional issues, 23 years later in a
    much more serious context. These are not law school exams,
    these are issues that are greatly impacting on the safety of
    our passengers on these cruise ships that operate out of our
    U.S. ports.
        Cruise ships have just boomed. In the 23 years I have been
    doing this, the ships are getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
    Ships are carrying over 2,000 passengers, 13 to 14 decks high,
    with 1,000 crew members from Third World countries, with very
    little or minimum background checks. All the ships now are
    flying foreign flagships. We've just read recently where a ship
    is being built that will hold 5,000 passengers. This has to be
    of grave concern to us and to the safety of passengers on board
    the ship with this tremendous growth.
        With this tremendous growth, we've seen an increase in the
    number of crimes. The statistics really are not what's
    important here. You have significant crimes on cruise ships,
    and cruise ships are confined environments, and it is easier to
    protect citizens and prevent crimes from occurring in the first
    place on a cruise ship than it is in a city.
        I have always felt a concern for this industry which
    operates out of the United States and carries millions of U.S.
    passengers each year, yet has reaped the advantages of being
    able to incorporate in foreign countries and fly flags of
    convenience, enabling cruise ship operators to avoid many U.S.
    laws and regulations. I too am from Florida and understand the
    significant of the cruise ship industry.
        The foreign nature of the cruise ship industry, as I said,
    has resulted in a situation where the employment of the crew is
    almost exclusively from countries outside of the United States.
    Many Third World countries, many poor countries, and in my
    experience over the years, although the cruise lines state that
    they have agents to hire crew members in the different
    countries who may be responsible for some type of background
    check, many crew members save for years to pay a fee under the
    table to these agents to secure an employment letter to come
    and work on a cruise ship that are carrying our U.S.
    passengers, with no background checks.
        It's been necessary to discuss the foreign nature of this
    cruise line industry because it is the nature of the beast,
    which leads us to the questions that Congress is addressing for
    a second hearing already.
        It's apparent from hearing these issues discussed today,
    and from the hearing that was held previously in December, that
    there is a big void or gap when it comes to the laws or
    regulations governing the cruise ship industry. That does
    impact upon the safety of a passenger who decides to embark on
    a cruise with one of these foreign incorporated, foreign flag
    cruise ships.
        It's time to closely look at this industry. U.S. citizens
    should not have to rely upon the cruise ship industry itself
    for protection against criminal activity aboard a cruise ship.
    A U.S. citizen should not have to rely on the industry itself
    to adopt and implement their own internal standards governing
    crime on board the ships, especially when the bottom line of
    the industry is profits, billions of dollars in profits.
        I heard mentioned earlier, and I would indicate that I am
    an attorney in a case, class action case involving a cruise
    ship that deliberately went into a storm to maintain an
    itinerary, and I heard that mentioned earlier by the panel, and
    I would just mention that as I do have some background in that
    case too, and some information.
        The cruise ship industry attracted much more public
    attention in the mid 1990's, not that they wanted to, but due
    to an outbreak of Legionnaire's Disease, reports of sexual
    assaults on board the ships and how they were being handled by
    the cruise lines, as well as violations of the U.S.
    environmental laws.
        The violation of the environmental laws led to numerous
    felony convictions and millions of dollars in fines being
    imposed. Some of the felonies that the cruise lines pled guilty
    to involved falsifying official ships' logbooks, which were
    referred to by the crew members as fairy tale books; destroying
    evidence and providing false testimony to a grand jury, and
    tampering with evidence. The U.S. Government and the U.S.
    public were lied to about environmental matters. Yet this is
    the same industry that currently U.S. citizens rely upon to,
    ``voluntarily report crimes,'' as well as to voluntarily
    implement adequate security aboard the ships, and to adequately
    conduct investigations of any allegations of crimes aboard
    their cruise ships.
        What we have learned today from listening to the victims
    from this great organization that has been formed, is that
    these stories are a result of the nature of the beast, of an
    industry that regulates itself, that conducts its own
    investigations on board the ships, and that has an incentive
    not to honestly and accurately report or investigate crimes.
    You can say all you want, ``We report a crime, we don't have
    to, but we do, and here are the statistics,'' but it doesn't
    matter.
        You need to know when they reported it, how they reported
    it, what happens before it's reported, what happens before any
    U.S. authorities get involved, and what do these statistics
    really mean if we don't have adequate classifications of the
    crimes, definitions, like we in the United States, where we
    have index crimes, we have uniform definitions of what
    constitutes a crime, methods of reporting, collection of that
    data sent to a centralized agency, and we can then say how much
    crime is there in each particular city throughout the United
    States and each county. We cannot do that in the cruise ship
    industry.
        If a passenger reports something as stolen, and the cruise
    line decides, based on their own internal investigations, to
    say it's just a missing item, you don't have a crime there.
    These statistics cannot be relied upon.
        I've heard the suggestions made by the International Cruise
    Victims organization. I've gone over those, and they are very
    good suggestions. One of the main things I believe is that you
    have an industry investigating their own crimes and accidents
    that they may be held accountable for in a civil setting, and
    there's something just inherently wrong with that.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rivkind follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.105

        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Rivkind.
        Mr. Gorsline.

                    STATEMENT OF RONALD J. GORSLINE

        Mr. Gorsline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon or
    evening, as it is right now. My name is Ronald Gorsline, and
    I'm the owner of Secure Ocean Services, LLC, and I thank you
    for the opportunity to be present to testify as an expert
    witness in the subject of maritime security as it relates to
    the cruise industry.
        My company is a small company providing internal compliance
    auditing services for security programs in the cruise industry.
    Our job is to act as an honest broker while conducting internal
    audits and marking recommendations to correct program
    shortfalls, and identifying program strengths, as we identify
    them in our findings.
        Today I am testifying about security practices, training,
    qualifications, jurisdiction of foreign flag vessels as
    incidents may occur on board those vessels. My testimony is not
    intended to point fingers as to cause, or add speculation on a
    company's conduct, but rather to clarify process and procedures
    as required by law.
        In the United States and in the International Maritime
    Organization, there are rules that govern how the security
    program is set up aboard ship. For the United States, we are
    governed by 33 CFR part 101, and Part 104, specifically 104 for
    ships. International Maritime Organization adopted a regulation
    called the International Ship and Port Security Facility Code
    [ISPS], Parts A and B. Those are the cornerstones for the
    security programs on board ships.
        The officials who are responsible for enforcing such laws
    on board the cruise ships ultimately is the master of the ship.
    He is the law enforcement authority while a ship is at sea and
    under way. The master overall is responsible for the vessel as
    shown, and is governed by regulations Part 104 CFR 33, 140.205
    in the U.S. Code, and by the ISPS Code, Part A, Section 4.10 in
    the International Code. And at all times, the master of a ship
    has the ultimate responsibility for the safety and security of
    a ship, even at security level 3. A master may seek
    clarification or amendment of instructions issued by those
    responding to a security incident or a threat thereof, if there
    is reason to believe that compliance with the instruction may
    imperil the safety of the ship. That's his job.
        The overall structure, as reflected in my testimony, gives
    you a brief breakdown of how it can be looked at in a picture.
    You have a company that has a company security officer, who is
    ultimately the program manager for the security program in the
    system. On board the vessel you have the master, who is the
    ultimate authority, and you have a vessel security officer. The
    vessel security officer is responsible for security on board
    the ship, but he reports to the master. If an incident occurs
    on board, the vessel security officer is the point to address
    the problem on board. The master is responsible overall for the
    execution of the process.
        The company security officer is notified in that process,
    and then they consult on how to address the problem, upon which
    the company security officer notifies the law enforcement
    entity or agency that is to be the investigating authority.
        Training overall, what is available on cruise ships for
    security as far as technology and application of those items as
    a security plan is considered security sensitive information,
    so I can't go into specifics on ships' numbers or anything like
    that, but I can give you a general idea.
        There are metal detectors, both walk through and hand
    wands. They have x-ray machines. They're experimenting with new
    trace detection technology. They're looking at microchips.
    There is training on all of these items that are out there.
    Alarms and weather decks in certain areas where the passenger
    is not authorized to be working as far as the line handling
    area, forward section, chain locker and those areas.
        They have a swipe card system that is attached to an ID
    photo that was taken upon check in, and that ID photo is
    transmitted into the system, and then every time somebody
    swipes their card to come on board it is confirmed by visual
    biometrics of who they are.
        Modern vessels today are basically totally automated. Those
    cards are used to access, as was identified and spoken to
    earlier in the first panel, to basically handle your accounts,
    access in your rooms and everything else. The older vessels
    have a swipe card system for identification purposes, and
    normally you'll be issued a key for the room if they don't have
    the automatic key locks.
        Personnel training. I've enclosed in here in my testimony
    and I won't go through each line item. Each position on a ship,
    as identified by both U.S. and International Code, what the
    training requirements are for each position. The companies have
    to meet that. That training is done. It is logged and it is
    entered into the training records as individuals are carried on
    board the ship.
        As I said earlier, you have the master, the vessel security
    officer or the ship security officer under ISPS Code. You have
    those individuals that their primary responsibilities is
    security, and then you have those individuals who have
    secondary responsibilities in security. They have varying
    different levels of degree. Then after all that is said and
    done, there's a secondary training process where companies set
    up to do report writing, handle issues that come on up as far
    as techniques and circumventing security techniques and doing
    crime scene collection of evidence, and then packaging it and
    turning it over to that authority once they report on board to
    do the investigation.
        The special maritime territorial jurisdiction of the United
    States has been expanded to include places outside of the
    jurisdiction of the Nation when those offenses are against the
    Nation of the United States as part of U.S.C. Part 18, and
    among those offenses is special maritime territorial
    jurisdiction of the United States are the crimes of murder,
    manslaughter, maiming, kidnapping, rape, assault and robbery.
    That comes under all Title 18.
        As stated earlier, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is
    the investigating entity under maritime code, and the Coast
    Guard captain of the port is overall responsible for those
    items in the port when a ship is stateside the United States.
        The policy is a single industry standard that requires
    allegations of on board crime be reported to the appropriate
    law enforcement authorities with vessel calls on U.S. ports of
    crimes involving U.S. citizens would include the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation. They are the responsible authority to do
    that.
        The companies, the industry as a whole has a zero tolerance
    for crimes on board committed on board vessels. If crimes do
    occur, the appropriate law enforcement authorities will be
    called to investigate, to prosecute to the fullest extent of
    the law. The cruise industry continues to cooperate with
    authorities to ensure that the perpetrators of crime are
    brought to justice. This is a requirement.
        As previous testimony in December 13, 2005, the agreements
    are in place with the membership of the ICCL companies, and the
    flag states addressing communications with the lead agencies to
    investigate all cases once reported.
        In addition to the above, trafficking of illegal drugs and
    narcotics is included and is also investigated by the Customs
    and Border Agency.
        While on board the vessel, the vessel security officer and
    the ship security officer will refer to the incident report
    procedure to collect evidence, interview witnesses, assemble
    the report, package all material to be turned over to the
    investigating authority upon arrival in the next port.
    Additionally, the company security officer will be notified of
    the incident and give direction to the VSO and coordinate
    actions with the master and the VSO and the appropriate agency.
    In the event forensic evidence is to be collected of a
    scientific nature, then ships doctors will more likely be
    pressed into service to administer such things as rape kits to
    confirm a complaint.
        Personnel training and capability will vary from company to
    company. Some companies have their own academies to provide
    this training. Other companies will subcontract their training
    out to an appropriate training authority that can do that.
    Others will have people come on board and do what they call
    training programs. But training is occurring. They have to meet
    these guidelines.
        In short, on the jurisdictional issues on the flag vessels,
    I really don't want to go into that too deeply because I'm not
    a lawyer. I do know this, that foreign flag vessels are flag
    states. Flag states are contracting governments who signed up
    to the IMO and adhere to the ISPS Code in addition to their own
    laws. Flag states also have their own recognized security
    organizations that are referred to as RSOs. The RSO in most
    cases is a class society designated by that flag state as a
    verification arm to ensure that the ISPS Code is being followed
    by the ship or the company that is flagged under that flag. The
    RSO will ensure the ship flagged has a security plan that meets
    the ISPS Code. The RSO ensures the international ship security
    certificates, issues them on out for the flag state, and
    ensures that the vessel will have an IMO number of
    registration, fly a flag of that nation. Examples are Bahamas,
    Panama and Liberia. The foreign flag ships avoid U.S. domestic
    maritime policy and taxes.
        The United States isolates domestic policy from
    international through the Jones Act. Domestic policy requires
    that you have to build at home, crew at home and own at home to
    carry cargo between U.S. ports.
        Mr. Shays. I need you to finish up here.
        Mr. Gorsline. I'm going to do that right now, sir.
        In short, there are five areas that need to be addressed
    here that verify the Congress has the ability to act upon
    requirements to enact laws to meet the territorial jurisdiction
    of the United States.
        One, there is a territorial jurisdiction if a ship enters
    or acts occur within a territory of a particular country, then
    that country's laws apply.
        Two, under the ``national'' theory, the country where any
    alleged crime perpetrator resides has jurisdiction over the
    matter involving a perpetrator.
        Three, the nation with the custody of any alleged
    perpetrators of certain types of crimes can claim jurisdiction
    under the universality principle.
        Four, under the ``passive personality doctrine,'' the
    Nation where the victim resides can exercise jurisdiction over
    a matter.
        Five, any country whose national interests are affected by
    an incident can assert protective jurisdiction.
        I hope I have answered your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gorsline follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.119

        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        Mr. Kaye.

                     STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE W. KAYE

        Mr. Kaye. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Mica, I thank you again
    for inviting me to testify today. I am very proud of my
    representation of the cruise industry over the last 30 years,
    but I'm even prouder of my role as a son, brother, husband and
    father of three. There is nothing that I can say to detract
    from the tragedies that these families who have testified here
    today have told us about, and I want to begin by extending my
    deepest sympathies to each of them and their families.
        Hopefully, the information I've been invited to provide
    will assist them and you in understanding the legal obligations
    that currently govern this industry, and that's my sole purpose
    in being here. I commend you and the subcommittee for taking
    the time to explore them.
        The fact is that we don't have a very complex system of
    laws governing cruise ships. It may seem that way if you're
    confused about it, but our U.S. criminal jurisdiction on cruise
    ships does provide a very high level of protection to Americans
    traveling anywhere in the world. It starts with the U.S.
    Constitution, which states in Article I that Congress is
    authorized ``to define and punish felonies committed on the
    high seas.'' That is exactly what our Congress has done. Over
    the years it has asserted our national power over some 20
    different categories of crimes in what is referred to as the
    special maritime jurisdiction of the United States. These
    include everything from sexual misconduct to robbery and theft,
    to terrorism and murder, and everything in between.
        On U.S. flag ships--and there are some today in fact
    sailing in Hawaii--our Federal Government has jurisdiction over
    those crimes anywhere the ships operate, involving any soul on
    board. On foreign flag ships, our criminal jurisdiction in
    these crimes extends to anyone in U.S. waters, Americans on the
    high seas on those vessels, or even Americans in foreign waters
    if that voyage on that foreign ship starts or ends in the
    United States. It is as simple as that.
        In my 27 years of legal practice I have never heard of a
    situation where an agent of the FBI has been denied access to a
    foreign flag vessel seeking to do an investigation. I've just
    never heard of that happening. Usually there is a report made.
    There is a request to do the investigation, and with open arms,
    they board the ship.
        These same Federal maritime statutes ironically have been
    incorporated into the Federal aviation scheme, and as
    Congressman Mica no doubt is aware, the Federal criminal laws
    that apply to international aircraft boarding passengers in the
    United States, incorporate by reference the Federal crimes that
    apply in the special maritime jurisdiction. So Congress was so
    satisfied that scheme was clear and comprehensive enough that
    it simply rolled it over into the aviation industry.
        We know there are 31 million passengers, 10 million a year
    approximately in the cruise industry. There are 72 million
    passengers a year in the airline industry boarding foreign
    craft in U.S. airports.
        Even though cruise ship passengers, I think we can all
    agree, are much safer from crime than inhabitants of even small
    cities cross the United States, because of these Federal
    criminal laws, they have the protection of the FBI as their
    enforcement resource. On land, where these crimes are much more
    prevalent, victims are relegated to the protection of the local
    police station. Crimes on cruise ships can and have been
    prosecuted under the full panoply of our Federal court system,
    including nationwide subpoena power over witnesses and
    evidence, national and international extradition, and a
    worldwide investigative capability second to none.
        I'd like to turn now to crime reporting because I think
    this is an issue that has sadly been very misunderstood,
    perhaps even by the attorneys that are advising some of the
    people who have suffered these tragic losses. The fact is that
    regulations on the security of passenger vessels were passed by
    this Congress in 1998, and amended in 2001 and 2002. They
    expressly requires all ships, regardless of registry, sailing
    to or from a U.S. port, to report any felony that occurs in a
    place subject to U.S. jurisdiction to the FBI.
        Now, as we've just seen, places subject to the U.S.
    jurisdiction include the high seas and even foreign waters of
    other nations when an American is involved. About 85 percent of
    the North American cruise industry are voyages out of U.S.
    ports, Florida, California, Hawaii and Alaska. For the 15
    percent or so of cruises that don't touch a U.S. port, the
    cruise lines, nonetheless, still report all felonies involving
    Americans to the FBI. That is where the industry's zero
    tolerance voluntary reporting policy kicks in, and that is in
    addition to the mandatory requirements.
        Now, even so, on January 10th of this year, immediately
    after this subcommittee's last hearing, the International
    Council of Cruise Lines arranged a meeting with the FBI, Coast
    Guard, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and others. The
    purpose was to discuss a thorough review of those reporting
    procedures to ensure a consistent and uniform protocol, so that
    every agency interested in a particular class of matters would
    receive whatever report it desired.
        I also want to add that in checking the airline industry,
    despite the fact that there are seven times the number of
    patrons flying on international carriers from U.S. airports,
    and despite the fact that the same Federal crimes apply on
    aircraft, there is absolutely no requirement legally for
    airlines to report any crimes to anyone.
        The statistics of crime in the cruise industry are reliable
    because of the mandatory reporting, and they show that cruise
    ships are remarkably safe. Out of the more than 31 million
    passengers carried over the past 3 years, passengers and crew I
    should say, there were 178 total claimed sexual assaults, 24
    missing persons, excluding the 5 who were rescued or found, and
    4 robberies. When you factor in how many of the incidents
    involve passengers, it works out to less than 4 claimed sexual
    assaults per million carried, which ironically, happens to be
    the exact same statistical chance of a person being struck by
    lightning. I was surprised to find that out myself. The numbers
    translate into 1 reported robbery for every 8 million carried;
    12 of the 24 missing persons were tragically determined to be
    likely suicides, and I am not including Mr. and Mrs. Pham in
    that number, one an accidental fall overboard, and that leaves
    11 truly missing out of 31 million.
        This is by no means to minimize these occurrences because
    even one such incident on a cruise is one too many, especially
    if it were your loved one.
        Briefly, I want to outline that U.S. civil jurisdiction on
    cruise ships also gives passengers as high or higher protection
    than patrons on land. It's another reason why the cruise
    industry has every incentive to ensure that their ships are
    safe. United States and even foreign passengers have very broad
    access to U.S. courts. If the cruise line is based in the
    United States, as is every major line of the ICCL, a U.S. form
    for resolution of their grievances must be provided. By Federal
    statute, if the ship even touches a U.S. port, any provision of
    the ticket that weakens the right to a trial or tries to limit
    damages for negligence is legally void.
        I can tell you that all cruise ships today have security
    teams with extensive military of law enforcement backgrounds.
    Closed circuit cameras, x-ray screening, computerized door
    locks that record all entrances into cabins, computerized ship
    access identification systems that match passenger and crew
    photos to the individual boarding, rape kits, strict
    segregation of passenger and crew areas, non-fraternization
    policies, no guest policies, security rounds, and zero
    tolerance for crime are commonplace in the cruise industry
    today.
        Until the FBI or other appropriate authorities begin
    investigations, cruise lines provide the same or better
    response to potential crimes as their shore-side counterparts,
    but like airlines, hotels, restaurants, theme parks, resorts
    and the like, they neither have the expertise, nor the legal
    authority to perform criminal investigations or prosecute
    crimes. So they rely on the responsible authorities to do so,
    but the next port of call is typically less than a day away,
    and the ships are in constant radio communication with the
    authorities, and follow any and all instructions given.
        I thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kaye follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.135

        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Kaye. I thank all three of you
    for your testimony.
        We will start with Mr. Mica, and since there are only two
    of us, what we will do is we will do 10 minutes, but then you
    can have another 10 minutes, and another.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you. I don't know if I will take that much
    time, Mr. Chairman, but I appreciate all three of the witnesses
    in this panel.
        I made a full disclosure before. I am not an attorney,
    although I am a Gator like Mr. Rivkind. Although I never went
    to law school, I have tried to practice adopting and enacting
    some laws from a different side of the aisle. But, Mr. Kaye,
    you seem to indicate from your testimony and you seem to be
    fairly expert that there are laws in place and there are laws
    that protect U.S. citizens, and I think you also tied it into
    the aviation industry so that the American traveler who gets on
    a cruise ship cannot be under the impression after this hearing
    that they are left in some lawless state.
        Are these laws adequate then and in place?
        Mr. Kaye. Absolutely.
        Mr. Mica. That is a beautiful answer. OK.
        Mr. Gorsline, from some of the other things we have heard,
    it is like nobody is in charge on a cruise ship, but I think
    you outlined that, in fact, there is a real pecking order as
    far as law and enforcement. We have heard that there are laws
    that govern, that protect American citizens. On the cruise
    ship, then, the captain is the chief officer, and he has the
    authority in international waters and is required to obey
    international laws and the other pertaining laws. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Gorsline. Yes, sir, that is correct.
        Mr. Mica. Then you went down the chain of command, so there
    is a chain of command.
        Mr. Gorsline. Yes, sir, there is a chain of command.
        Mr. Gorsline. I am not that familiar with cruise ships. Mr.
    Chairman, I think that Mr. Rivkind--and we might want to
    correct the record because I heard his verbal testimony was
    different from his testimony that he submitted to the
    subcommittee. He said, ``The foreign nature of the cruise ship
    industry has also resulted in a situation where the employment
    of crew is almost exclusively from countries outside the United
    States, including poor, undeveloped, Third World countries.''
    That is his statement that he submitted for the record. Is that
    correct, the one I have up here? But his verbal testimony, if
    we go back and check the record, was a little bit different. He
    said that almost exclusively the crews were Third World--let's
    say. I tried to copy it. Third World countries, giving a
    different impression that the whole crew is basically a bunch
    of Third World folks that do not really know what is going on.
        I am not that familiar, again, with the industry, only what
    I have seen. Aren't most of the cruise ship captains and the
    key staff that you outlined, Mr. Gorsline, aren't they from
    sort of developed countries like Italy and Greece
    predominantly? Would that be----
        Mr. Gorsline. Sir, in my experience on the ships that I
    have surveyed and done audits on, the operational staff,
    including chief officers and everything else, yes, they are
    either Norwegian, German----
        Mr. Mica. Are they from Third World countries--now, the
    registry may be different, like you may have Liberia, Bermuda.
    I don't know where they register. Again, I can only go by my
    observation, but for the record, aren't most of those people
    who are in charge and responsible, as Mr. Kaye has outlined,
    for actually executing the law, they are not from Third World
    countries, are they? Would that be--I mean----
        Mr. Gorsline. In my experience, sir, that would be correct.
    The senior officers on board----
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Kaye, do you have any knowledge? I mean, the
    ones I have seen--and I have talked sometimes--sometimes I get
    invited to meet the captain. I have only met Greeks, Italians,
    British.
        Mr. Kaye. Norwegian.
        Mr. Mica. Not Third World countries. Norwegian, yes.
        Mr. Kaye. French.
        Mr. Mica. Scandinavian.
        Mr. Kaye. Italian, French, United States.
        Mr. Mica. Are you aware of any cruise ships that have their
    people in command from Third World countries, either of you? I
    would ask for the record.
        Mr. Gorsline. I have not witnessed any, no, sir.
        Mr. Kaye. I don't think I can identify any.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        You know, I think you said also, Mr. Rivkind, was it your
    testimony before Congress that statistics are not important? I
    wrote that down. You said statistics are not important?
        Mr. Rivkind. I would like to address that, of course, your
    question, but I would like to get back----
        Mr. Mica. No. Did you say in your testimony before this
    subcommittee that statistics are not important?
        Mr. Rivkind. I don't think statistics should be focused on
    the way they are with this industry and----
        Mr. Mica. OK. All right. I am----
        Mr. Rivkind. I would like to make a comment----
        Mr. Shays. Just 1 second----
        Mr. Rivkind. I would like to make a comment----
        Mr. Shays. Hold on.
        Mr. Rivkind. OK.
        Mr. Shays. Because, Mr. Mica, you have no limit to time, I
    do want to make sure the witnesses respond, and I am eager to
    know what his answer was. I do not want to take you from your
    thought, but allow him to just finish.
        Mr. Mica. He testified--in fact, I wrote it down before I
    went back and read something else. He said, ``Statistics are
    not important,'' and I have a little quote, and I have R, which
    is Rivkind. The others are a G and a K. So what----
        Mr. Rivkind. I am ready to respond.
        Mr. Shays. Yes, and I would like to know your answer to his
    question.
        Mr. Rivkind. Yes, I think in the context of what we are
    discussing, as was mentioned at the last hearing, when I heard
    an FBI official, a Coast Guard official, and a U.S. Navy
    official here in these hearings say that the statistics
    provided are meaningless, and I heard that. I attended the last
    hearing, so I think that----
        Mr. Shays. In the context of this, just to make sure,
    because I do not want to exaggerate, meaning in the context
    that they cannot be certain they are accurate.
        Mr. Rivkind. Exactly.
        Mr. Shays. That was the basis. They cannot certify that
    they are accurate because they are being provided--no, let me
    just finish. Just because you were not at the hearing, and I
    just want to make sure the record is clear. Because based on
    the fact that they are voluntarily provided, that was the
    basis. And that is what we are trying to determine----
        Mr. Mica. Well----
        Mr. Shays. And let me just continue, because you will have
    your time. There was indication afterward that the FBI may have
    felt they overstated that statement, that there is some meaning
    to it, but they cannot guarantee their validity. That was their
    basic thrust.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Well, see, again, I am not an attorney. I
    just pick these things up here. He said in testimony before
    that statistics are not important. But someone handed me this
    article after you said that and said it--and I get misquoted in
    the press all the time, and I think this is a better--I mean,
    it is a statement I want to enter in the record, which I think
    is important, that Mr. Rivkind has said. I think we need honest
    statistics, and we should--if we require it under the law--this
    is in a Miami Herald article dated Sunday, February 12, 2006.
        Now, I raise that because, Mr. Kaye, you told me there was
    a reporting requirement. So is there or isn't there a reporting
    requirement? I don't know. Can you tell me, Mr. Kaye?
        Mr. Kaye. There is absolutely a reporting requirement. They
    are found in Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
    beginning at Section 120.
        Mr. Mica. OK. So that would provide us with some honest
    statistics? Is there any other way? You know, can we use
    chains, prods, electrical--is there some way to get more honest
    statistics? Is there something--the other thing, too, I was
    sort of wondering. And, again, also, one thing for the record,
    Mr. Chairman, and also Mr. Rivkind, just for the record, Mr.
    Rivkind made the comment and referred to me, a Member of
    Congress, and my comment and took it--and I want to clear it
    just for the record, just so that it is clear, that somehow I
    as a member did not understand the difference between security
    and law enforcement as it might apply to cruise ships.
        Just for the record, I wanted it clarified that, you know,
    I am not the smartest guy in Congress, but I do know the
    difference, and I did express my deep concern for all of those
    who had some incident which, in fact, they related before this
    committee. All of them were tragic, and I expressed my concern
    about security. But for the record, Mr. Chairman, and for Mr.
    Rivkind's information, I expressed my concern, my personal
    concern. I thought I had disclosed that I was chairman of the
    Aviation Subcommittee, a senior member of the Transportation
    Committee. My concern is the failure of the Federal Government
    to provide adequate port security, not just for cruise--and I
    should elaborate that for the record--also for cargo vessels
    and other maritime vessels, and the terrorist threat.
        So I do have concern about people who have experienced a
    horrific incident, wherever it is. I just wanted to be allowed,
    Mr. Chairman, just to provide that commentary for the record.
        Mr. Rivkind, just a question here. I understand you
    represent the International Cruise Victims Association. Is that
    it? Did you start it or you represent them?
        Mr. Rivkind. I am acting as legal counsel for them.
        Mr. Mica. OK. Do they pay you a salary or you do it----
        Mr. Rivkind. No, sir.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. Pro bono? And how many people belong
    to this association, do you know?
        Mr. Rivkind. It is growing in number each day. Kendall
    Carver would have a better idea of the exact number. He is the
    president of the organization.
        Mr. Mica. So you don't know how many victims are
    represented?
        Mr. Rivkind. Currently, I don't want to give you a number
    that is not exactly accurate. Kendall Carver would be better
    for that.
        Mr. Mica. All right. Now, you have a law practice, and I
    was reading some of your history, a great history in legal
    aspects of, I guess, maritime litigation. Today, most of it,
    though, would be described as in suits against the cruise
    industry or people who might have some cruise industry
    interests. You represent people, passengers and other folks,
    who have been injured or have some problem with the cruise
    industry. Is that correct?
        Mr. Rivkind. That is correct. My first 4\1/2\ years I
    represented cruise ships only. I am proud to say that all I do
    is represent injured victims.
        Mr. Mica. Over a 23-year period, the last 19----
        Mr. Rivkind. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, I come from Florida, and I just see
    what I see on TV. Again, I don't know that much of what is
    going on. One of the problems we have in Florida, of course, is
    the proliferation of suits against everybody. I mean, you get
    up in the morning and, you know, if somebody looked at you
    cross-eyed, call this number and you can sue.
        One of the things that concerns me is the proliferation of
    attorneys, particularly in Florida, around the cruise industry
    now suing the cruise industry. In fact, I don't know, maybe you
    have heard this. I saw people actually passing out little
    flyers and legal cards at some of the ports. Have you heard
    that is going on?
        Mr. Rivkind. I did not----
        Mr. Mica. And these are--I have to qualify. That is, you
    know, like let's sue--has anything gone wrong with your trip or
    your cruise? Would you like to sue? Have you heard of that?
    Again, I have heard some. I have seen a little, just the trips
    I have seen.
        Mr. Rivkind. I would like to respond. First I would like to
    say I am in the middle of a trial, and a lot of these comments
    sound like many of my jurors about tort reform and the
    necessity of tort reform, and I can see where your position is
    on that. I also understand, as you have made clear, you are a
    great friend of the cruise ship industry, and I do sue them,
    have for many years, and I am proud of it.
        If people are at the ports handing out cards or flyers or
    anything like, I don't know----
        Mr. Mica. But you don't do that and you don't advertise for
    those kinds of cases, do you, publicly?
        Mr. Rivkind. No, sir--in what sense? You are talking
    about----
        Mr. Mica. Well, handing them out is one thing, but do you
    advertise that, you know, if you want to sue a cruise ship or
    just that kind of litigation, that is your bag?
        Mr. Rivkind. I do not actively advertise my services.
        Mr. Mica. OK. And, again----
        Mr. Rivkind. I am word of mouth. I do not even have at the
    current time a major Web site advertising my services.
        Mr. Mica. I don't want to embarrass you----
        Mr. Rivkind. I get my cases through word of mouth.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. But have you made a lot of money
    from suing the cruise industry? I mean, hundreds of thousands,
    millions a year?
        Mr. Rivkind. I am proud to say that based on my legal
    abilities and taking cases with a lot of credibility against
    the cruise line industry, and thank God, you know, there are a
    lot, a lot of cases with a lot of validity and credibility
    against the cruise line industry, and that is the problem.
        Mr. Mica. I am sure that----
        Mr. Rivkind. Maybe if they cleaned up their act, you know,
    it is a disincentive for me to be here and I wouldn't be making
    so much money.
        Mr. Mica. Well, from the description you gave, as the
    industry gets bigger, those ships get bigger, you will have
    plenty of opportunity, from what I have heard.
        Gentlemen, just a couple of closing questions. Again, I
    come from Florida. I am familiar with some of the different
    tour industries, resort industries. I don't know of any
    industry that has the security measures both, say, entering a
    resort, exiting a resort, that the cruise industry has. I mean,
    I have seen it. They take your picture. They verify. They check
    it. Is there any industry--when we went to see--with the
    President, they did wand us, but we did not have to show our ID
    or anything. Are you aware of any tourism industry that does
    that? Aviation I know does not do it. The airlines do not do
    it. We do it with the people that check actually your picture
    and ID--this is kind of ironic. They are probably some of the
    lowest-paid people and they are not TSA or Federal----
        Mr. Kaye. I am not, Congressman. My----
        Mr. Mica. Are you aware of anyone----
        Mr. Kaye. No, and I would add that in the cruise industry,
    cruise operators are required to give passenger manifests to
    the government so that they can do a pre-screening against
    criminal watchlists. And crew are screened in the same manner
    in order to get C-1 visas to work on cruise ships so that there
    is--you know, we know who you are before you get on.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Gorsline.
        Mr. Gorsline. I don't know of any other industry either,
    sir. It is pretty thorough.
        Mr. Mica. Well, I am just trying to get an ID for pilots
    and crew of an aircraft. Have you ever seen a pilot ID? It
    looks like something that comes out of a Cracker Jack box. Now,
    we do have a new one coming online, but it does not have even
    the things that are required of a passenger getting on a cruise
    ship, and that is wrong. I do not want to justify that.
        Well, Mr. Chairman, just a few questions. I appreciate your
    forbearance and I yield back.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you----
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have not been to my
    office. I got off the plane, the late plane, and I would like
    to ask a unanimous request that the record be kept open for a
    period of at least--is 2 weeks OK? Is that a problem?
        Mr. Shays. That is----
        Mr. Mica. A period of at least 2 weeks for additional
    questions to be submitted to some of the witnesses.
        Mr. Shays. Right. Happy to do that. In fact, we will not be
    having another hearing--yes, sir?
        Mr. Rivkind. May I say something to Congressman Mica before
    you leave, since I understand you are leaving?
        Mr. Mica. I don't think the----
        Mr. Rivkind. There are three areas----
        Mr. Shays. No, Mr. Mica, seriously, if you are going to
    leave, let the gentleman have his say.
        Mr. Rivkind. It will take a couple minutes, sir.
        Mr. Shays. Well, no, not a couple of minutes. Make it
    quicker.
        Mr. Rivkind. He made three statements that I consider----
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Rivkind, excuse me. I do not have the time. I
    am a Member of Congress----
        [Audience groans.]
        Mr. Rivkind. A fellow Gator, you made an attack in three
    areas----
        Mr. Mica. No, Mister----
        Mr. Rivkind [continuing]. On what I believe is my
    credibility, and I would like----
        Mr. Shays. Hold on a second, guys. Hold on.
        Mr. Mica. Since when does a witness----
        Mr. Shays. Hold on.
        Mr. Rivkind. I just want to respond to three areas----
        Mr. Mica. I was going to ask----
        Mr. Shays. Would both gentlemen please suspend?
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. Just suspend a second. We have allowed you 15
    minutes to ask any question. You do not have to stay while a
    witness speaks, so you are free to leave.
        Mr. Mica. Mr. Chairman, under the--may I?
        Mr. Shays. Sure.
        Mr. Mica. Under the rules of the subcommittee, under the
    rules of the House, you have been most generous in giving me
    10, I think a total----
        Mr. Shays. Fifteen.
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. Of 15 minutes. Under the rules and
    procedures of regular order of this subcommittee, of which I
    have been a member for some--going on my 14th year, my time has
    expired. I was merely going to ask you if you would grant
    enough time either from your comments--I have no further time,
    but I would ask your request to----
        Mr. Shays. No, let me just be----
        Mr. Mica [continuing]. Give the gentleman an opportunity
    before I left, before he interrupted me.
        Mr. Shays. No, the bottom line is you have no time limit.
    You have got----
        Mr. Mica. Well, again, I yielded back, but, again----
        Mr. Shays. OK, sure. Thank you.
        Mr. Rivkind, if you would like to say something, and then I
    have a lot of questions I want to ask.
        Mr. Rivkind. Yes, there are three things that were
    mentioned that I did not get to respond to and I think I was
    unfairly attacked about. One was the comment about hiring crew
    members from Third World countries. It is true that the
    officers tend to be not from what we would call ``Third World
    countries,'' but most of the other crew members are. There is a
    major cruise line that does hire many of their security
    personnel from the Philippines, which last that I knew of
    constituted a Third World country. At depositions they admit
    that most, if not all, of their crew members below officers are
    hired from Third World countries.
        Why is that important? Because we are talking about crimes
    on board ships. Most of the reported crimes, unfortunately, are
    crimes committed by crew members, most of the ones that are
    reported. Most of those from cabin stewards and the type of
    crew members that are accused of these crimes do come from the
    Third World countries, and that should be a concern of the
    Congress because, as I stated on my experience, it seems that
    those type of crew members can get a job on a cruise ship very
    easily. They buy the employment letters. There are very little
    background checks, and we have heard from another witness
    today----
        Mr. Shays. What is your next point?
        Mr. Rivkind. The next one was statistics. When I say that
    the statistics aren't important to me, when I hear a comment
    that we cannot rely on the statistics, that they may have some
    meaning but they may not be accurate, and we know that
    statistics can be manipulated, in my opinion they aren't
    important. We have a problem here, an obvious problem, and that
    is what I meant in the context of saying statistics were not
    important.
        Mr. Shays. As you are a lawyer, probably a better choice of
    words rather than ``important'' is they may be misleading. OK.
        Mr. Rivkind. Thank you, Congressman. And then the last one
    was I did not in any way, shape, or form try to say anything
    about your intelligence, Congressman Mica. I am sure you are a
    highly intelligent, schooled individual. You did mention
    earlier that you were concerned more with terrorism and port
    security than law enforcement on board the ships, and I was
    just trying to make a distinction because what we are talking
    about here is not all these treaties and these international
    laws that deal with protecting ships from terrorism, but actual
    onboard law enforcement, and that is what I meant by that
    comment, and I did not mean any disrespect with that comment.
        So thank you.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you, and let me just thank Mr. Mica for
    being here, because he has added to the work of this committee
    tremendously, and there is no one I frankly respect more. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Kaye, first off, I appreciate your testimony. You are
    the only one that has told me it is simple, and it may very
    well be, so you got my attention up front. We wrote to the
    Coast Guard after our last hearing, my staff member, Dr.
    Palarino, and he wrote to the head of liaison for the Coast
    Guard, in an e-mail dated March 6th, and he said, ``Michael, I
    have a lawyer telling us that passenger vessel operators or
    security officers of vessels embarking and disembarking
    passengers from U.S. ports are to report to the Coast Guard and
    the FBI any felonies committed on board a cruise ship. Is this
    correct? Because this is not what was reported to us at the
    last hearing.''
        The response from Commander Michael Lodge, ``The industry
    has initiated a self-imposed requirement to report such
    incidents; however, there is no Federal law or regulation, nor
    is there any international treaty or customary law that
    requires such a report.'' Nick responded to that--Dr.
    Palarino--``Michael, you guys are the experts and I believe
    you, but what about the CFR cited? Am I not reading it
    correctly?''
        Response from Commander Lodge: ``33 CFR 120.220, `that
    occurs in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United
    States,' while some crimes are covered under the special
    maritime and territory jurisdiction of the United States, 18
    U.S. Code Section 7, this limitation would not reach all
    vessels and all crimes.''
        So what are you saying and what is he saying, and how do we
    connect them?
        Mr. Kaye. OK. Well, I guess what is most important is what
    the regulation says, and I have it in front of me. Section
    120.220(a), which is entitled ``What Must I Do to Report an
    Unlawful Act and Related Activity,'' and it states, ``Either
    you or the vessel security officer''----
        Mr. Shays. And who is ``you''?
        Mr. Kaye. The shipping line, the ship owner.
        Mr. Shays. OK.
        Mr. Kaye [continuing]. ``Or the vessel security officer
    must report each breach of security, unlawful act, or threat of
    an unlawful act against any of your passenger vessels to which
    this part applies or against any person aboard it that occurs
    in a place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.''
    And then elsewhere it defines ``unlawful act'' as a felony.
        Mr. Shays. What is the penalty?
        Mr. Kaye. $6,700.
        Mr. Shays. OK. To the cruise industry?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. So why when we were meeting with the--when we
    had the FBI and the Coast Guard, they don't see it the way you
    see it?
        Mr. Kaye. Well----
        Mr. Shays. Let me just say and preface it by saying that
    says to me there is something more to the story.
        Mr. Kaye. I will give you my most honest answer. I wasn't
    at the last hearing----
        Mr. Shays. I want your least honest--no, no. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kaye. You will always get my most honest answer.
        Mr. Shays. I will get your honest answer. There is not a
    most honest.
        Mr. Kaye. I wasn't at the last hearing. I don't know the
    expertise of the witness who testified. I did review in detail
    the transcript or Mr. Swecker, and I did notice that when he
    was asked about extraterritorial jurisdiction on cruise ships,
    he initially stated, ``This is not my area of expertise.'' And
    that is a quote from his transcript.
        Mr. Shays. Fair enough.
        Mr. Kaye. I can also tell you that the people at the
    seaports, like the gentleman quoted over here who is in
    charge--it is the blue board to the right, the middle one, the
    special agent in charge of the Florida seaports, he seems to be
    satisfied that the reporting is very thorough, and I can tell
    you, in California, where I reside, the FBI is fully aware of
    the obligation to report. And when someone other than the
    cruise line or its officer reports, they become very irritated
    because the report under this regulation is supposed to come
    directly from the cruise line.
        Mr. Shays. So if the theft is under $10,000, it is
    reported?
        Mr. Kaye. It is not necessarily reported unless it is a
    felony. Recall that these regulations define ``unlawful act''
    as a felony. So that----
        Mr. Shays. I thought theft--so an $8,000 theft is not a
    felony?
        Mr. Kaye. It is not a felony, sir. A felony kicks in at
    $10,000. In addition, there is a January 2000 memo from the FBI
    to the cruise industry, which you may hear about from some of
    the cruise line representatives, that was disseminated that
    specifically directed the cruise lines to report thefts only in
    excess of $10,000.
        Mr. Shays. When the cruise line industry makes a comparison
    to the public sector, if someone steals $5,000, that is
    reported and it is statistically part of a community's record,
    correct?
        Mr. Kaye. On land?
        Mr. Shays. Yes, on land.
        Mr. Kaye. If a person reports the theft, I assume so, yes;
    just as if I assume that if a person----
        Mr. Shays. But that wouldn't be reported on a ship?
        Mr. Kaye. If the person chose not to report it?
        Mr. Shays. No, no. I just am trying to understand
    statistics--you know, frankly, I want to say I have no dog in
    this fight. But what I do react to is when I feel like I am not
    being told the truth or that I am steered this way when, you
    know, if I was more knowledgeable, I would go in this
    direction. You heard the first panel, and I think I have faith
    that what they told me about how they were treated was accurate
    subject to not being convinced of that. Every one of those
    stories raises a question about the sincerity of the cruise
    line industry, frankly. So my antenna is up. I am suspicious.
        So then we hear statistics that say, you know, there are
    only so many of a particular category, and then 10,000
    passengers decide, and then they compare it to a town. Well,
    you know, a town just does not have people living there for a
    week. So when you divide the 52 weeks into the number of
    passengers, you get to a community more like 200,000. Then I
    think, well, in a community of 200,000, you actually have
    policemen, and you actually have people who are trained in a
    variety of detective work. And so then I start to draw
    comparisons, and then all of a sudden the comparisons don't
    hold because the security people are not necessarily trained
    the way some would be trained in Darien, CT, or New Canaan, CT,
    with 20,000 people, 23,000, 30,000, or whatever, or my city.
        So I am just trying to explain to you that I am trying to
    sort this out. We have now the Coast Guard saying there are
    certain requirements that they don't have to report, and we
    have you citing the regulations. I want to make sure, because
    you are under oath, that you are totally comfortable with
    giving me the impression that reports are required, because we
    will have another hearing and we will invite you back if the
    information pushes us in this way when, in fact, you did not
    tell me the rest of the story.
        So one part of the story is that--and you said ``felony.''
    It has to be $10,000 or more. If you had $8,000 stolen from
    you, would you not be outraged that was not part of the record?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. OK. So technically, the comment about a felony
    is significant, but then I have to know the rest of the story.
    That is $10,000 or more. And so what I am asking you is do you
    think most of the crimes would be under $10,000?
        Mr. Kaye. Most----
        Mr. Shays. Crimes. I didn't say ``felony.'' Most of the
    thefts would be under $10,000.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes, most of the alleged thefts, I think yes.
        Mr. Shays. Well, not alleged thefts. Thefts, whatever they
    are. I mean, because there are thefts, not alleged thefts.
    There are thefts. You become alleged when you try to put a
    number to it, but you and I will both agree that there are
    thefts on board, and you and I would both agree that probably
    most of the thefts--not alleged thefts but most of the thefts
    are under $10,000. I am not playing a game with you. I am
    just----
        Mr. Kaye. No, but I can't determine something is a theft
    until a law enforcement authority or a court determines it is a
    theft.
        Mr. Shays. Don't be a lawyer here. I am just----
        Mr. Kaye. No, I am just being honest.
        Mr. Shays. No. Are there thefts under $10,000?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. OK. They are not alleged thefts. They are
    thefts.
        Mr. Kaye. Some of them are alleged thefts that----
        Mr. Shays. Some are and some aren't.
        Mr. Kaye [continuing]. Are proven not to be thefts.
        Mr. Shays. Let's forget the alleged thefts and let's talk
    about thefts.
        Mr. Kaye. OK.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Now, all I am asking you is: Would it be
    your testimony that there are more thefts under $10,000 than
    more thefts over $10,000? That is an easy answer. The answer is
    yes.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Now, then the question is: Shouldn't that
    information be provided? Wouldn't I want to know, if I was on a
    cruise ship, that I could have a $5,000 theft or a $2,000--I am
    going to be pretty unhappy if someone--if I decide this trip is
    costing me $2,000 or $3,000, it is a great week, and then I
    have $3,000 stolen from me. In my own mind, that cost me
    $6,000. That is not a good deal.
        So what I am just trying to say is: So the rest of the
    story is your testimony, anything over $10,000 has to be
    reported, alleged or not, or actual, any alleged has to be.
        Mr. Kaye. Correct.
        Mr. Shays. And my point to you is: Would it not be
    important for all statistics to be provided but that the FBI
    may not want to or choose to investigate something that is
    under $10,000? That is another issue. What I am trying to do is
    sort out where we go.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes, and I guess the question I am left with is
    where would you draw the line. If it is a pair of sunglasses, I
    mean, these are the types of things that are allegedly stolen
    on cruise ships. Oftentimes they are lost. Sometimes they are
    stolen. And so where would you draw the line? I agree that at
    some place a line needs to be drawn, but people may differ as
    to where that line should be drawn.
        Mr. Shays. OK.
        Mr. Kaye. But I think the cruise industry would be happy to
    draw the line wherever they are asked to draw the line.
        Mr. Shays. I think that is true. Now if someone breaks into
    my house, is that a felony?
        Mr. Kaye. Yes. Burglary, yes.
        Mr. Shays. So if someone breaks into my room, is that a
    felony?
        Mr. Kaye. With force, yes, I believe it is.
        Mr. Shays. I don't care if it is with force. How about a
    key?
        Mr. Kaye. I am not an expert in criminal law, so I am
    searching my criminal law class 30 years ago.
        Mr. Shays. But I think you know what----
        Mr. Kaye. Potentially, yes.
        Mr. Shays. I think you know where I am going.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. I am just----
        Mr. Kaye. I think there is an element of force involved,
    which is, you know, what I am trying to explain.
        Mr. Shays. Well, if someone broke into my house in
    Bridgeport, CT, where I live--and everybody knows I live
    there--I am not going to care whether they broke a window to
    come in or they were able to pick the lock or whether they were
    able to find a key, because maybe one of the workers who worked
    at my house gave them the key because I gave them the key. I
    don't really care. I don't have a cleaning service, but if I
    had a cleaning service who had a key and somehow that got--I
    would still expect my police department to take this crime
    seriously and investigate.
        Mr. Kaye. Sure.
        Mr. Shays. What we are being told is if it is $10,000 or
    more, it gets investigated; if it is $8,000 or less than
    $10,000, it does not get investigated by the FBI. They have
    drawn the line.
        Mr. Kaye. That is correct.
        Mr. Shays. So who investigates?
        Mr. Kaye. The cruise industry will investigate it, and they
    will make a record of it, in my experience, and the passenger,
    if they wish to pursue it further, can take it up with the FBI.
    There is jurisdiction over theft under 18 U.S.C. 661 below
    $10,000. Absolutely, the FBI has jurisdiction over thefts below
    $10,000.
        Mr. Shays. You were here when Mr. Leonard testified about
    his theft.
        Mr. Kaye. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. What was your reaction?
        Mr. Kaye. I really didn't have a reaction.
        Mr. Shays. Why not?
        Mr. Kaye. My reaction was----
        Mr. Shays. I had a reaction. I think probably everybody in
    this room had a reaction. But why wouldn't you have a reaction?
        Mr. Kaye. My reaction was, to be honest, why wasn't it
    reported to the authorities by the Leonards.
        Mr. Shays. As opposed to what they did?
        Mr. Kaye. In addition to what they did. If they felt that
    the cruise line wasn't reporting it, why didn't they report it?
        Mr. Shays. You know, my reaction was, My God, this guy went
    through 100 ways to try to get the attention of the cruise
    industry and the line, and they just basically gave him a stiff
    arm. That was my reaction. And I would have thought, as someone
    representing the cruise line, you would have said to me, ``This
    is not a good reaction on the part of the people I represent.
    This guy deserves to be treated better.'' That is what I would
    have thought you would have felt.
        How did you feel, Mr. Gorsline, when you heard that?
        Mr. Gorsline. My personal feeling, sir, is that the
    situation warranted some action. Not having been involved with
    it, I really can't comment on whether that action was
    appropriate or not. You know, just on face value from what I
    heard, I would have sought out additional avenues to get
    compensated, you know, figure out what had happened and get my
    report taken care of.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Rivkind, how did you react?
        Mr. Rivkind. I reacted the same way you did, Congressman. I
    thought that, you know, it was inappropriately handled by the
    cruise line, and it shows, even if there are procedures in
    effect, that they don't get followed.
        Mr. Shays. So what we have had is three witnesses that lost
    family members; we had one witness who was raped, allegedly--
    and I am hesitant to put the word ``allegedly'' because I would
    want to give her the benefit of the doubt on that--and we had a
    young girl who was given lots of drinks and went overboard.
        I would like each of you to walk down how you reacted to
    each of these testimonies. Let's start with you, Mr. Kaye. How
    did you react to Mr. Carver's testimony?
        Mr. Kaye. I think what happened to Mr. Carver was
    absolutely horrible and inexcusable.
        Mr. Shays. Was the firing of the supervisor--was he the one
    responsible ultimately, in your judgment?
        Mr. Kaye. I think he was one of the people responsible.
        Mr. Shays. Who else was responsible, in your judgment?
        Mr. Kaye. I think the cruise line was responsible morally
    to make sure that notification went out and that there was a
    followup. Unfortunately, the line apparently never became aware
    of the situation.
        Mr. Shays. But when they did become aware of it, did you
    see them as part of the solution or still part of the problem?
        Mr. Kaye. I honestly don't know enough about the case to
    answer that. I don't know----
        Mr. Shays. Well, let me just talk hypothetically. Do you
    think they should provide him the information he is requesting?
        Mr. Kaye. Depending on the information, yes. I don't know
    what information he requested, and I don't know what
    information was not given.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Well, he testified about some of the
    information. Maybe you were not listening to that part.
        Mr. Kaye. I was listening.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Do you think he was entitled to the
    information that he requested?
        Mr. Kaye. Again, I don't recall what information he
    requested that he was not given.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Gorsline, I am talking about Mr. Carver.
        Mr. Gorsline. Mr. Carver's case, I think it was a complete
    breakdown of human factors in the whole process with the
    supervisor. And that being said, that was the logjam
    involvement, the company being made aware of it and their
    response, again, I think that was--I wouldn't have settled for
    that personally myself.
        Mr. Shays. I think you are very generous, Mr. Gorsline. I
    mean, the gentleman said, ``My daughter was on board your ship.
    Your steward knew that she was missing. You knew that she never
    came to claim her belongings. You proceed to get rid of her
    belongings, and you never told any of the family.'' Hello?
        Mr. Gorsline. I agree, sir.
        Mr. Shays. And then once he came forward, wouldn't you have
    thought that they would have said to Mr. Carver, ``What can we
    do to make things right from this point on? How can we
    cooperate? What are all the things that you need to know? And
    what can we do to help?'' Wouldn't that have seemed like the
    logical way?
        Mr. Gorsline. My personal opinion, sir, I would have set up
    a casualty assistance team, more commonly referred to as a GO
    team, and once the information became available of that
    occurrence, there would have been security on top of Mr. Carver
    giving him anything he wanted.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Rivkind.
        Mr. Rivkind. Yes, Congressman, I think the way they handled
    that was outrageous. I think it is easy to blame a supervisor,
    but it goes to the top. You know, it goes to the training. It
    goes to the mentality of anytime anything happens on a cruise
    ship that the crew members, including supervisors, are there to
    protect the company. And I have cited in my written testimony
    the position the cruise line has taken in a lawsuit by Mr.
    Carver that I think is also outrageous. They have responded to
    his claim that they inflicted emotional distress upon him by
    not releasing all this information about his daughter, basic
    information. Their response, Congressman, was not to sit down
    and say, ``We will give you the information. We want to give
    you some closure. We want to help you.'' Their response was,
    ``We do not owe you any duty to investigate.'' And I think that
    is very, very telling, and I have attached that memo to my
    written testimony.
        Mr. Shays. That is, frankly, one of the motivations for our
    having this hearing. If the cruise line industry was eager not
    to have us proceed, they could have treated someone like Mr.
    Carver in a much different way.
        I will start with you on Mr. Pham.
        Mr. Rivkind. I think the same thing. I think that they are
    quick to characterize an incident as a suicide. You have heard
    the testimony, Congressman, that it does not appear that there
    were factors to suggest that. And it again goes to the source
    of the problem. This is an industry that likes to characterize
    anything that happens on board their ship, including the
    Master, whom we have heard is responsible for enforcement of
    all the rules and regulations on the ship and the safety of the
    ship, that anything that happens on a cruise ship, it has been
    my experience that the mentality of the Master of the ship is
    nothing wrong happens on his ship. ``It is a suicide.'' ``It is
    consensual sex.'' And I know we are not talking about it now,
    but at any time you would like me to, it applies to the George
    Smith case, too.
        Mr. Shays. We are talking about the witnesses that came and
    testified.
        Mr. Rivkind. Right.
        Mr. Shays. You are representing the Smith family, correct?
        Mr. Rivkind. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Shays. So that is another day.
        Mr. Gorsline.
        Mr. Gorsline. Again, sir, I would have done the same thing.
    I would have set up a casualty assistance team and gave the
    Pham family everything they needed. Why things didn't happen
    that way, I don't know the case and I am not a lawyer, but as a
    security person, a security expert, and having dealt with many
    situations like that, the first thing you usually do is you
    address the issues and the needs of the family or the persons
    that are involved in the situation when it arises.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Kaye.
        Mr. Kaye. Based on what I have heard, there appears to be a
    very serious problem. But as in most cases, there are usually
    two sides.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Kaye, what would you do if you saw someone
    fall overboard or jump? You are on board the ship. Where would
    you go?
        Mr. Kaye. I would immediately go to any one of the
    thousands of employees on the ship and tell them. I would
    throw----
        Mr. Shays. No, don't get carried away here. There are not
    thousands of employees. There are about 900 employees, right?
        Mr. Kaye. Depending on the size of the ship, there may be
    close to 2,000 employees.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Kaye, with all due respect, I feel like I am
    playing a game here with you. I have been told by the cruise
    industry that most of the ships are 2,000 passengers with 900
    employees. Should I go back to these folks and have them tell
    me differently? That is what I have been told. I know there is
    going to be a 5,000-passenger ship, but I am told most are
    around 2,000. Are most of them 3,000 or 4,000? So tell me, I
    mean, you are the expert.
        Mr. Kaye. Most of the ships have over 2,500 passengers and
    over 1,000 crew members.
        Mr. Shays. OK.
        Mr. Kaye. In my experience.
        Mr. Shays. So thousands or--you are under oath and under
    testimony here. How many crew members are there in a 2,500-
    passenger ship?
        Mr. Kaye. I believe over 1,000.
        Mr. Shays. Over 1,000. How many?
        Mr. Kaye. I believe, although I am not certain, 1,200 to
    1,500.
        Mr. Shays. OK. So you would go to any one of the employees
    on board the ship, and what would that employee do?
        Mr. Kaye. Normally, I believe, if I first went to an
    employee, they would immediately contact the bridge, and they
    would begin a man-overboard procedure.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Gorsline, what would you do?
        Mr. Gorsline. I would flag down an employee, tell them to
    contact the bridge that they have a man overboard. And because
    of my background, I would look for the nearest life ring with--
    --
        Mr. Shays. The nearest what?
        Mr. Gorsline. Nearest life ring with a blinker on it and
    throw it over the side to try and mark the spot. But that is me
    personally because I have that background.
        Mr. Shays. Do you think most employees know instantly what
    to do if someone is overboard?
        Mr. Gorsline. I know there is a man-overboard procedure on
    board the ship. The abilities to effectively execute it is
    totally dependent upon their training and how often and how
    familiar they are with that.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Rivkind.
        Mr. Rivkind. My knee-jerk reaction would be, of course,
    obviously to flag down the first person I could, hope they
    speak English, and hope that the crew member is somebody who
    has some training and knows what to do. I would have doubt
    whether all the crew members would.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Let me just say that if Mr. Kaye had said
    the last point, I would question him, so I want to question
    you. The implication is that most people don't speak English.
    Do you think that is fair?
        Mr. Rivkind. Not all--not the most.
        Mr. Shays. Do you think that is accurate? Is the
    implication of what you just said that most people don't speak
    English?
        Mr. Rivkind. I think a majority of crew members may not
    based on my experience. There are increasing requirements now
    occurring to place more English-speaking crew members on board
    the ships, and they currently are doing that. My experience
    over the years has been there has been a great number of the
    crew members, you know, even some of the officers, you know--
    and if they speak English, it is not thorough, complete
    English.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Gorsline, how many security people are on
    board a ship of, say, 1,000 employees or crew members? How
    many--and by ``security,'' I mean people that would function
    like police officers.
        Mr. Gorsline. Sir, based upon 49 CFR 1520, I cannot go into
    those numbers because they are classified security sensitive
    information.
        Mr. Shays. You know, can I say something? I have just been
    waiting for someone to do that. Why is it OK for me to know how
    many police officers are in Darien, CT, and it is not all right
    for me as a passenger to know how many police officers are on a
    ship?
        Mr. Gorsline. Sir, with the current security posture of the
    country and the industry and what we have to deal with on a
    regular daily basis, it is not prudent to make that information
    available.
        Mr. Shays. Is it not prudent because we do not have enough?
        Mr. Gorsline. Oh, no, sir. We have enough. I will tell you
    this, sir. Let me give you this for----
        Mr. Shays. Your testimony is that you have enough. That is
    what----
        Mr. Gorsline. Yes, sir, we do. I will say from my personal
    experience on the ships that I have audited, there is plenty of
    security people on board, and the programs in place in tiered
    level to go ahead and back them up to the nth degree. A case in
    point, I will give you a perfect mathematical example----
        Mr. Shays. Do they carry weapons?
        Mr. Gorsline. I cannot give you that information, sir. They
    are trained in crowd control and maintaining control of a ship.
        Mr. Shays. Are they trained in institutions or are they
    trained on board the ship?
        Mr. Gorsline. It depends on the company, sir. Most
    personnel that are hired in those positions are of a security
    background, whether it be former military or former law
    enforcement.
        Mr. Shays. So your testimony before this subcommittee is
    that most have military training?
        Mr. Gorsline. Yes, sir. The ships that I have done, yes,
    although the foreign flag ships will have persons that are not
    U.S. military, but they are former military background.
        Mr. Shays. See, what I would think would be that you would
    want me to know they are armed, that you would want me to know
    they are extraordinarily capable, and the fact that this is not
    information that somehow people would share makes me think that
    we are almost reluctant to have people know because it is not
    satisfactory. That is my implication from----
        Mr. Gorsline. Can I clarify, sir?
        Mr. Shays. Sure.
        Mr. Gorsline. Here is the situation and the numbers. I am
    going to go point by point here. If you were to take a city, as
    New York City--and I use New York because that is where I am
    from. You have 8 million inhabitants and you have 43,000 law
    enforcement officers on the books. You divide that into three
    shift. That approximately comes out to 13,333 people per shift,
    if they all show up. Normally it is between 7,000 to 10,000
    people. That puts one police officer per thousand people,
    roughly, in that city--OK--on a shift, on an 8-hour shift. OK.
        The cruise industry has security personnel that covers that
    many times over. Now, as to the question of weaponry and
    protection, I will say this: Cruises have their own
    personality. Every cruise is addressed with a different
    security level based upon the requirement of what the cruise is
    going to be going underneath. They have their basic levels. The
    regulations are set up for those basic level. But if you have a
    spring break cruise, you may add some additional things. You
    may put a law enforcement officer or two or four on board to
    assist the security staff to deal with rowdy individuals in
    like-type situations. If you have a charter party where you
    have dignitaries or that kind of thing, they bring their own
    security on board if it is that kind of situation, and that
    enhances the cruise security on board the ship.
        But the basic level of security is there. Additionally to
    the security force, the crew will have responsibilities based
    upon the increase of the mar-sec level based on the terrorist
    threat. And those crew members that have been designated by the
    Emergency Response Plan will augment the security department.
    So the numbers increase exponentially.
        Mr. Kaye. Mr. Chairman, may I throw in a comment here?
        Mr. Shays. Sure.
        Mr. Kaye. I understand where you are coming from, and I
    think it is a very legitimate question. The difference between
    a cruise ship and a city is that a cruise ship is a self-
    contained environment. A city has, you know, limitless
    resources.
        Mr. Shays. Right.
        Mr. Kaye. And so, you know, when you start talking about
    what the exact capabilities are, you are by definition telling
    people what the limitations are. I may be going out on a limb
    here, but it may be completely appropriate for this information
    to be divulged to you in private.
        Mr. Shays. No, but see, what my view is, if you had
    sufficient security, it would almost be a disincentive to do
    something on board a ship. And so you view it as a way to give
    someone an opportunity to know how they could overcome the ship
    or to commit a crime. I view it the opposite. I view it as
    saying, my gosh, they got so many folks, I wouldn't want to
    fool around.
        So it is interesting, our two different perspectives.
        Mr. Gorsline. Sir, can I just comment on that part also? In
    my career, I worked a lot of surveillance detection for the
    State Department. We did a lot of work on identifying those
    individuals that would cause harm to U.S. facilities, and that
    was part of the deal, we would go on out and basically bird-dog
    certain places where certain people would hang out and identify
    their posture, their profiles and everything else, and we would
    put them in categories.
        Now, put that in reverse mode. That is exactly what happens
    when somebody comes on a cruise ship that wants to identify its
    weaknesses. They call it a vulnerability assessment. If you
    identify a vessel's vulnerability and you determine how to
    defeat it, you put everybody on board that vessel, crew and
    passengers, at risk. This is part of that.
        Mr. Shays. Let me ask you this: Do you think it is a
    disincentive to crime or an incentive to crime to know we have
    a marshal on board a plane?
        Mr. Gorsline. On a plane? On an aircraft?
        Mr. Shays. Yes.
        Mr. Gorsline. I think personally that any motivated
    individual or entity that is going to carry out an act and has
    identified an entity to do it on is going to do it. If the
    marshal is there and he gets the job, which is about 3 seconds
    to respond, because at the last level, Level 7 of an attack
    when it occurs, is recognition of an attack. If that marshal
    can recognize----
        Mr. Shays. You are talking a different language to me. I
    just asked a simple question. Do you think it is an incentive
    or disincentive?
        Mr. Gorsline. It is a disincentive. If you can make a
    target harder, they will move on. But if you put a marshal on
    there, you are going to take something--you know, you have to
    account for how many marshals are you going to put on. What
    jurisdiction are they going to be?
        Mr. Shays. Let me ask the question again. Do you think it
    is an incentive or a disincentive to let people know that we
    have a marshal on board an airplane? All you have to do is tell
    me you think it is an incentive or not an incentive or you
    don't know. What is your answer?
        Mr. Gorsline. For the passengers?
        Mr. Shays. For someone to commit a crime on board. Tell me
    your answer.
        Mr. Gorsline. I think it is a disincentive. If you make a
    target harder, they are going to move on to the next target.
        Mr. Shays. OK. And the fact that they know it is a
    disincentive.
        Mr. Gorsline. But part of the marshal program, sir, if I
    just say, is that you don't know who the marshal is. You just
    know they are out there.
        Mr. Shays. Fine. So let me ask the next question: Do we
    have marshals on board ships?
        Mr. Gorsline. To my knowledge, in the cruise industry, no,
    sir.
        Mr. Shays. OK.
        Mr. Gorsline. Now, if the cruise line wants to go ahead and
    put one in for a specific cruise, i.e., hire a local sheriff's
    department or a police officer to come on board----
        Mr. Shays. See, but I like those, if the crimes are
    investigated by the Federal Government, why not have a Federal
    official on board the ship?
        Mr. Gorsline. Because a Federal officer would not be in his
    jurisdiction because the flag of the ship is not flagged United
    States.
        Mr. Shays. So help me out, Mr. Kaye. You are trying to make
    me feel comfortable that the Federal officials are going to
    quickly get involved, and we have testimony from Mr. Gorsline
    that they shouldn't be on board the ship because Federal
    officials are out of jurisdiction there.
        Mr. Kaye. I don't think legally that answer flies. I think
    that if there is a crime on board involving an American, a
    Federal official on board would have jurisdiction. Absolutely.
        Mr. Shays. OK. So----
        Mr. Kaye. But he might not have jurisdiction over nationals
    of a foreign country who are victims of crimes if the incident
    is on the high seas.
        Mr. Shays. Fair enough. It is just that I am just thinking,
    you know, a crime is committed and then how does the FBI agent
    get on board to investigate when the ship is out to sea. I am
    just wondering, if these ships are so expensive and we have so
    many people and so many employees, and we are willing to put a
    marshal on board an airplane, is not one of the suggestions
    made by the group before us that we do that, someone with
    Federal jurisdiction, is there not some logic to it? Mr.
    Rivkind.
        Mr. Rivkind. Well, Congressman Shays, my experience--and I
    think we have heard it also from the FBI, my direct discussions
    with the FBI--is I think Mr. Gorsline is correct, when you fly
    a foreign flag, you are the country of that flag. And the FBI
    has stated--there may be criminal jurisdictional statutes where
    they can enforce in court a crime that is committed on the
    ship, but as far as getting on board that ship, there are a lot
    of complex issues there. They have to get permission of the
    cruise line or the Master because that is a foreign-flagged
    ship, and if the ship is in a foreign country, there may be
    some relationship with that particular foreign country, too,
    that has to be worked out for them to get on board the ship.
    And we have a case involving where the FBI wasn't allowed to
    board the ship for some period of time. It is up to the Master.
    He controls that ship. It is the country of the flag.
        Mr. Shays. Let me ask you, Mr. Kaye, not here but later--
    and Mr. Gorsline, and you, Mr. Rivkind, to review the
    suggestions that were made by the International Cruise Victims
    Association. I think that in my time in Congress this is a
    very, I think, fine example of people trying to make a
    contribution who have felt they have been victims. It may be
    that some are just simply not going to do what they want or are
    not feasible or are simply not affordable. But I do think in
    here it would be helpful to know your reactions.
        And let me tell you what--I don't usually do this, but what
    I think I have learned from this session. Mr. Kaye, your
    comment that the records that crime statistics of a felony have
    to be reported is going to stand with me. I at the last hearing
    believed it wasn't. We have spoken to the Coast Guard. They say
    no. You have cited regulation. That is going to stand until I
    hear differently.
        The fact that it is $10,000 or more for a felony says to me
    that it is not really as helpful as it should be. I think
    crimes below $10,000, if they are not going to be investigated,
    should at least be reported.
        I have mixed feelings about, Mr. Kaye, your response to
    some of the folks that testified, because I felt like with
    every one of them, admittedly some alleged, but all of them
    heartfelt, that at the very least the cruise industry should
    have been, once they knew what had happened, once they felt the
    agony of the family, should have been moving in a different
    direction than they moved.
        And I will say, because I know that Jennifer Hagel-Smith is
    here, and I had read from her letter previous, the one-page
    document that I read, condensed from evidently six pages, I
    think overstated her circumstance in terms of not necessarily--
    her claim was that no one was there for her. In the context of
    what she meant, I do have empathy for what she meant. She had
    believed that there would be security people and so on.
        I was a little surprised, I will say, with the response of
    the cruise industry. I felt--excuse me, the cruise line. I felt
    that their response to her comments was maybe accurate to a
    point, but a little insensitive given what she has gone
    through.
        And so we are going to have the next panel. I think what we
    will try to do is convene at least their statements. And is
    there anything you would like to put on the record before we
    get to the next panel, any closing comments?
        Mr. Rivkind. I would just state, Congressman, that the
    president of Royal Caribbean Cruise Line has gone on national
    television saying, ``We are the only industry that is not
    required to report a crime.'' So I think that maybe in the next
    panel----
        Mr. Shays. We will sort it out.
        Mr. Rivkind [continuing]. That should be addressed, yes.
        Mr. Shays. Yes, this is not the last hearing.
        Mr. Rivkind. OK.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Gorsline, any comments you would like to
    make?
        Mr. Gorsline. No, sir. I think I have said all I need to
    say.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Kaye.
        Mr. Kaye. No, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you, and I want to say to all three of you
    your testimony has been very helpful, and, Mr. Kaye, you are
    the first person who has ever claimed it is simple, and it may,
    in fact, be more simple than we think, but it may not be right.
    So, with that, let me thank you all very much.
        Mr. Kaye. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Shays. I do not usually convene a panel at 5:30. Are
    they still here? Excuse me, 6:30. Mr. Charley Mandigo, Director
    of Fleet Security, Holland America Lines; Captain William S.
    Wright, senior vice president, Marine Operations, Royal
    Caribbean, accompanied by Dr. James Fox.
        We have two people giving testimony. Mr. Mandigo, Captain
    Wright, and Dr. Fox, if you would raise your right hands?
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Shays. Gentlemen, I am sorry that you have had to wait
    so long. We started at 2. Probably this one we should have had
    only two panels. But I would like you both to be able to make a
    statement before we break, and if you would be so kind as to
    allow us to vote and then finish with our questions, that would
    be appreciated.
        Mr. Mandigo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. It is Mr. Mandigo?
        Mr. Mandigo. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Mandigo, you have the floor.

       STATEMENTS OF CHARLEY MANDIGO, DIRECTOR, FLEET SECURITY,
      HOLLAND AMERICA LINE; AND CAPTAIN WILLIAM S. WRIGHT, SENIOR
          VICE PRESIDENT, MARINE OPERATIONS, ROYAL CARIBBEAN
         INTERNATIONAL, ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES FOX, NORTHEASTERN
      UNIVERSITY, THE LIPMAN FAMILY PROFESSOR OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE

                      STATEMENT OF CHARLEY MANDIGO

        Mr. Mandigo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me here before your
    subcommittee a second time. I believe that I was here in
    December. My name is Charlie Mandigo. I am the director of
    Fleet Security for Holland America Line. Holland America Line
    is a subsidiary company of Carnival Corp., which encompasses
    Carnival Cruise Lines, Princess, Costa, Holland America Line,
    Windstar, and a couple other companies. My position also is a
    company security officer for Holland America Line.
        I have been employed by Holland America for 3 years in the
    position, and prior to that, I was employed by the FBI for 27
    years and had retired as a special agent in charge of the
    Seattle office of the FBI. In that position, I was responsible
    for all crimes underneath the FBI's jurisdiction to include
    terrorism, crimes on the high seas, and other matters.
        In that 27-year career, as all of us see in the media, it
    rapidly became clear to me that crime can occur in every
    segment of society, regardless of where we were. In that
    capacity, and switching careers from one to another, and prior
    to my employment with Holland America Line I had never been on
    a cruise ship, but looking at the numbers that my expectation
    would be that I would look at the possibility of spending a
    significant amount of my time handling crime on cruise ships.
        Much to my satisfaction in this when I came to the cruise
    line and supervising these matters throughout Holland America
    that has 12 cruise ships, I found a very low incidence of crime
    compared to what my expectation was. And what I did find was a
    significant amount of our time was spent looking at proactive
    measures on board cruise ships to try to avoid crime. And we
    have many measures in place on cruise ships to deter crime, to
    minimize crime, and we do an extraordinarily good job on that.
        Unfortunately, when we are dealing with a large number of
    people, as any large number of people in any segment of our
    population, there are always going to be incidents that occur
    that are tragic and are unfortunate. And I know in my
    experience of law enforcement where I handled child abductions,
    kidnappings, and other matters, some of them did not turn out
    well. Always the most difficult part of the job was dealing
    with victims, in that they are very tearing, they are very
    tragic, and very difficult to deal with. And all victims on
    this, we would extend our condolences to. But it is our
    objective to provide a safe and secure place for all of our
    guests on board our cruise ships.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Mandigo.
        Captain Wright. You need to hit the button there. There you
    go.
        Captain Wright. Technology.
        Mr. Shays. Great. Thank you, sir.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.139

                     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. WRIGHT

        Captain Wright. Chairman Shays and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Bill Wright. I am the senior vice
    president of Marine Operations for Royal Caribbean
    International, a global cruise vacation company operating 19
    ships. Our sister brand is Celebrity Cruises, which operates
    nine ships worldwide. I am pleased to be here today to provide
    testimony on behalf of our two cruise lines and our parent
    corporation, Royal Caribbean Cruises, Limited.
        I have more than 30 years of seafaring experience. I have
    worked for Royal Caribbean International for nearly 14 years,
    including serving as Master on a number of the ships in our
    fleet. In my current role, I am responsible for the maritime
    operations of the Royal Caribbean International fleet. I was
    born and raised in south Florida.
        All of us at Royal Caribbean appreciate the time and
    serious consideration that you are applying to these hearings.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        Captain Wright. We hope that they will improve the public's
    understanding of our industry, and we particularly appreciate
    you giving us this opportunity to appear before you to answer
    the subcommittees questions.
        There are clearly a lot of emotions surrounding the issues
    being raised here today, and our hearts go out to everyone here
    who has suffered a loss. But it is important that the facts and
    only the facts drive decisionmaking by interested parties and
    that the media not be used to distort the facts or to get in
    the way of law enforcement investigations in their search for
    the truth. It is important to the public, the cruise industry,
    and to Royal Caribbean that we discuss the facts completely,
    accurately, and in context.
        My written testimony addresses in detail issues related to
    the hiring and training of our staff, guest behavior policies,
    and crime reporting policies. Due to my limited time today, I
    will touch briefly on those issues and respond to those raised
    by others who have been asked to testify today.
        Providing a safe environment begins with hiring and
    training of our crew members, including crime reporting
    procedures, our safety policies regarding guests, and crew
    member behavior. Our U.S. and foreign national crew member
    applicants are screened carefully, and it is our policy not to
    hire anyone with a criminal past. Each ship has officers with
    specific security responsibilities on board. All crew members,
    regardless of their responsibilities, are trained to report any
    suspicious condition or activities on board to their superiors,
    who are then required to report them up the chain of command.
        Our policies and training require diligent reporting of
    alleged crimes to the FBI and other law enforcement
    authorities. The FBI has identified for the cruise line
    industry those allegations of potential crimes it wants
    reported. We not only report what the FBI requests, but we
    often report additional allegations that fall below FBI
    thresholds or what otherwise would not be reported in a land-
    based environment.
        Perhaps this is why FBI Agent John DiPaolo, who oversees
    criminal investigations for south Florida seaports, said the
    following about the cruise industry's crime reporting track
    record in the Miami Herald story on February 12, 2006, and I
    believe the quote is to our right and to your left: ```We have
    very open lines of communication,' DiPaolo said. `We've never
    had an instance where I went to them and said, Hey, you should
    have reported that to us.' ''
        In many cases, we give the FBI more than it requests. As a
    result, the FBI often declines to investigate allegations of
    crimes below certain thresholds. In other words, we report
    incidents to the FBI even though they fall below the thresholds
    the FBI has established for industry reporting. We have also in
    place strong and effective policies that establish appropriate
    behavior for crew members and guests, including crew member
    interaction with guests. We enforce these policies up to and
    including expulsion from the ship or termination of employment.
        Today, you have heard testimony from others regarding
    individual experiences on our cruise ships. We at Royal
    Caribbean and Celebrity Cruises extend our deepest sympathies
    to the Carver family for their loss, and we regret that one of
    our guests, the Leonards, reported that something was stolen
    while sailing with us.
        While we deeply regret that our guests had experiences they
    shared with the subcommittee, we should not lose sight of the
    facts surrounding these incidents, which represent less than
    one-tenth of 1 percent of our guests' experiences.
        The case of Ms. Carver is particularly tragic. We regret
    that the Carver family has experienced this inconsolable loss.
    We know now that one of our supervisors was notified by a room
    steward that Ms. Carver was missing from her cabin.
    Unfortunately, and tragically, that supervisor did not
    recognize the significance of her absence and never reported it
    to his superior, as he should have done. This was wrong and
    inexcusable. He exercised poor judgment and we fired him as a
    result.
        I also regret that, due to the supervisor's failure to
    notify his superiors, we didn't realize that Ms. Carver was
    missing and, therefore, no one from our company had the chance
    to personally inform the Carver family about her disappearance.
        Could we have done anything different to save Ms. Carver
    from apparently committing suicide? We have searched our minds
    and hearts to second-guess ourselves on that. Sadly, the facts
    appear that Ms. Carver went on this cruise with the intent to
    commit suicide. Ms. Carver purchased her passage only 2 days
    before the ship's departure from Seattle and boarded with only
    the clothes she was wearing, two purses, and an envelope
    containing a computer disk. These are not items that would
    prepare her or anyone else for a 7-night Alaska cruise.
        Mr. Leonard alleged that some of his wife's belonging were
    stolen from his cabin. We are genuinely sorry for their loss.
    It is noteworthy, however, that the Leonards declined to use a
    safe deposit box available on board because, as Mrs. Leonard
    has stated, she did not want to be inconvenienced. The Leonards
    have also declined travel insurance. And just if this jewelry
    had been lost at a hotel while on land, Mrs. Leonard could have
    filed suit against the company for her loss. But they have
    never exercised that right. Had the Leonards taken advantage of
    our security precautions, Mrs. Leonard's jewelry would have
    been secure.
        And, finally, I would like to add that our hearts continue
    to go out to Jennifer Hagel-Smith and the Smith family over the
    disappearance of George Smith. I was personally very happy that
    I for the first time have had the opportunity to meet Mr. and
    Mrs. Smith and Bree Smith and extend my condolences for their
    tremendous loss.
        I think it is important for the purpose of this
    subcommittee just to state that in this instance, as in other
    instances, our reporting of the disappearance of George Smith
    was expeditious and complete, and an investigation has been
    conducted, a thorough one, and we continue to cooperate
    entirely with the FBI.
        I thank you for this opportunity, and I am happy to take
    any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Captain Wright follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.153

        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. I am going to let my
    colleague jump in, but I just want to ask you, Captain Wright,
    are you comfortable with--I believe sincerely that with the
    case of Mr. Carver and his daughter Merrian, that you all
    deeply regret what happened. But I don't hear any regret for
    the problems he still encountered in trying to get information.
    That is where I am having my big disconnect with your company.
    It would seem to me that the way you would best express your
    sorrow is to do--almost have a situation team, it has been
    suggested, to say how can we help you in any way, get the
    information you need to get--etc.
        So, maybe you could respond to that.
        Captain Wright. Certainly. It is my understanding that we
    did our best once we were aware of the disappearance of Mrs.
    Carver, and it was tragic that the chain of command broke down.
    It was a clear error chain. Things went wrong, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. No, but in terms of talking to employees and
    stuff like that, they weren't given the access to do that. I am
    just curious why.
        Captain Wright. Oh. Well, my understanding, Mr. Chairman,
    is that they were. We actually designated a vice president of
    the corporation, Mrs. Lynn White, who is responsible for
    overseeing these types of issues, to personally take that case.
    We provided the Carvers with information that was voluntary. We
    also replied to subpoenas that Mr. Carver mentioned in his
    testimony. So I am not sitting here with the opinion that we
    have been as incooperative as Mr. Carver indicated.
        Mr. Shays. So let me put it in a positive and then give it
    to Mr. Kucinich. Are you saying that you provided all the
    information that the Carver family has asked for, or some of
    the information?
        Captain Wright. Yes, I believe we have attempted to be
    cooperative and I believe that we--my understanding is that we
    have provided information voluntarily above what was requested
    in----
        Mr. Shays. Are you aware of any information that you have
    not provided that they have requested?
        Captain Wright. No, I am not.
        Mr. Shays. OK. Mr. Kucinich.
        Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        I would like to ask both Mr. Mandigo and Captain Wright,
    since it has already been established that you don't keep
    records for the purpose of police reporting, you just turn
    things over to the FBI, at least with respect to any crimes
    that are committed within the United States, I have a question
    generally. Do you keep records for insurance purposes? Mr.
    Mandigo.
        Mr. Mandigo. I don't know what in reference you are making
    that to, Mr. Kucinich.
        Mr. Kucinich. Well, you know, if you have incidents on your
    ships, do you keep records for insurance purposes of those
    incidents?
        Mr. Mandigo. As a matter of routine, we would keep those
    records. Now, if at a future date it becomes relevant to
    insurance, then that record may be there. And we do not--we
    don't keep records specifically in anticipation of insurance.
    We keep records as a matter of routine and operational
    procedures.
        Mr. Kucinich. See, I just wonder, you know, if throughout
    this hearing this is one area that would be fruitful to
    explore, Mr. Chairman. Because people have testified earlier
    there has been a concern about certain things not being
    reported. And the implication is that there is a lack of
    incident recordkeeping and reporting by the cruise line
    industries. We have heard from the FBI and the Coast Guard they
    don't keep track of the number of incidents on cruise ships. I
    would think that just for insurance purposes companies would
    need to keep records of criminal acts.
        And so I want to ask you again. Do you have records of the
    criminal acts that have taken place on your ships?
        Mr. Mandigo. We have records--anything that is reported to
    us, you know, through our front desk on our cruise ships is
    reported as a matter of record.
        Mr. Kucinich. And this is a matter between you and the
    insurance companies first?
        Mr. Mandigo. No, it is not for insurance companies, it is
    for our own operational procedures.
        Mr. Kucinich. Do you keep records and you file reports with
    your insurers as to the incidents that take place on your
    ships?
        Mr. Mandigo. You are asking about a matter that I do not
    have expertise in as far as, you know, what is filed for
    insurance claim or not an insurance claim.
        Mr. Kucinich. Can you see that this subcommittee receives
    all reports of incidents, criminal incidents, that have
    occurred on your ships that have been filed with insurance
    companies?
        Captain Wright. I am sure that those records are there.
    They are--it is not my area of work. That inquiry would have to
    be directed elsewhere.
        Mr. Kucinich. Captain Wright.
        Captain Wright. Congressman, I would agree with the
    statement that was just made, that we keep a wide variety of
    records. I think your scrutiny of the----
        Mr. Kucinich. Are your ships insured?
        Captain Wright. Of course our ships are insured.
        Mr. Kucinich. Do you have liability insurance for acts that
    take place?
        Captain Wright. Yes, we do.
        Mr. Kucinich. Do you have out-of-court settlements that are
    directed, for instance----
        Captain Wright. I have no knowledge of that. I would assume
    we do, yes. That is an area that is handled by our risk
    management people. I would not be aware of the details. But
    certainly our ships are insured.
        Mr. Kucinich. Mr. Chairman, I think that there is just
    another way at which you can get information, that the
    subcommittee can gain information about what is going on on
    these ships. And that is to go after the records and the
    communications between the company and their insurers.
        If you are telling the insurance companies what is going
    on, there has to be records. Now, if things are going on and
    you are not telling the insurance companies, I am sure the
    insurance companies are going to be very interested in that,
    because that would affect what you are paying for your
    insurance. And it also could, you know, raise some interesting
    other questions that are legal in nature.
        So I think--and the work of the committee, which I know is
    ongoing, Mr. Chairman, I thought I would point out to you that
    it would be helpful for the committee's work to get the records
    of communications between the cruise lines and the insurance
    companies.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman--I know we are getting close to a
    vote here--I have from the Web site of the Royal Caribbean
    Lines a page here that talks about their environmental safety
    and security committee charter. I would like to submit it for
    the record. It says, under ``Safety and Security,'' this
    committee that they have set up shall review safety and
    security programs and policies on board the corporation's
    cruise ships; the committee shall review with management
    significant safety and security incidents on board the
    corporation's cruise ships and obtain reports from members of
    management as the committee deems necessary or desirable in
    connection with the corporation's safety and security matters.
        I would like to submit this for the record, and I would
    suggest to the subcommittee that we also gain copies of those
    reports. They might be really instructive as to what is
    actually going on on that line and any similar reports that
    might be available on any other line.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.155

        Mr. Shays. Gentlemen, I am going to make a request that, if
    you don't mind staying until after the vote, if you would look
    over--and my staff will give it to you--the recommendations
    that were presented to this subcommittee by the International
    Cruise Victims Association. What I would like is for you to
    tell me what you think is being done right now, what you think
    would be totally impractical or impractical, what you think
    would be very expensive--and let us judge that--and what you
    think might have merit, whether we require it or whether you
    all did it.
        This is the first hearing I have ever conducted where I
    have asked people to stay after a night vote hearing, and I
    apologize. I hope it will be the last.
        Dr. Fox. Will you want me to testify afterwards?
        Mr. Shays. Right. You know, Dr. Fox, I am sorry, I thought
    you were accompanying, and ``accompanying'' means you don't
    testify. So I apologize. That is the understanding. But I am
    happy to have you answer and respond to any questions that we
    have, OK?
        So we will have a temporary adjournment.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Shays. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Let me just revise what I said before I just ran out. Dr.
    Fox, we had you down as accompanying Captain Wright, but we are
    happy to take testimony, particularly given that it is a little
    after 7 at night and you have been here all day. So your
    testimony is welcomed, valued, and we will look forward to
    hearing from you.
        Dr. Fox. Thank you. And I believe there was also some
    written testimony which has already been submitted. Very short,
    so perhaps lost in the shuffle of the large documents.
        Mr. Shays. It doesn't have to be short. You give your
    testimony as you want.
        Dr. Fox. Oh, my verbal testimony will be short as well--not
    just given the hour, but it is short. And I thank you for
    listening to me and apologize for the confusion about the
    agenda.
        Mr. Chairman, my name is James Allen Fox. I don't mind the
    fact that there was this oversight, not at all. The only thing
    I minded tonight was when someone made reference to the fox
    guarding the henhouse. I took a personal affront to that.
        I am the Lipman Family Professor of Criminal Justice at
    Northeastern University in Boston. I think I heard that you
    were from Boston originally, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. I wasn't from Boston and I wasn't from Hartford;
    I was closer to New York City, which makes me a suspect Yankee.
        Dr. Fox. OK. I thought I heard Boston earlier, so I thought
    we would speak the same language here.
        Mr. Shays. No, what I was explaining is Mr. Lynch had no
    trouble hearing our witness from Ireland; I needed a little
    translation.
        Dr. Fox. OK.
        My specialty is crime statistics and crime measurement. I
    have several graduate degrees--doctorate, a couple of masters.
    One of the masters degrees is in mathematical statistics,
    besides the masters and doctorate in criminology. Among my
    books, I also have written seven statistics texts. I was the
    founding editor of the Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
    which is the most prestigious quantitative journal in our
    discipline. I am also a fellow at the Department of Justice
    Bureau of Statistics, maintaining much of the data on homicide.
    I point that out in terms of my role here, which is essentially
    to discuss and comment, and perhaps validate, on some of the
    measurements that have been made about the risk.
        I have also testified on 12 other occasions here in the
    Congress, so it is nice to be back. This time I am back at the
    request of the International Council on Cruise Lines and
    specifically to examine and comment on some of the numbers that
    have floated around--no pun intended--about crimes on board
    ships.
        Before I make my comments, I did listen and I was somewhat
    interested in the exchange earlier about Mr. Rivkind's
    testimony and whether Mr. Mica had heard it correctly or not
    heard it correctly. Actually, I heard it a little bit
    differently. I thought he had said that it is not about the
    statistics. Which to me meant that he wasn't saying statistics
    aren't important but that it is really an issue of human
    suffering and tragedy. And I do understand that and I feel
    quite strongly, as others do here, that we shouldn't lose sight
    of the tragedy and loss and suffering amidst all the numbers.
        Yet it is also interesting, in Mr. Rivkind's oral and
    written testimony he does say, ``There has been increasing
    numbers of criminal activity aboard ships.'' And being a
    numbers person and a quantoid, I sort of looked for some tables
    that--there are none. And I do wonder how he does make the
    statement about there being an increasing number of crimes. I
    suppose he just feels that since there is more ridership, more
    passengership, there would be more crimes, but that is an open
    question.
        I did look at some of the data. And while of course there
    is virtually no place----
        Mr. Shays. Could I just ask? I have asked all the other
    witnesses who testified in the last panel if they represented
    any interest. Are you being in any way paid by the cruise line
    industry? Are you representing them because--I think the
    feeling was that not that what you say isn't valid, but I just
    want to know. You are not an indifferent source here. You are
    paid by the industry or not?
        Dr. Fox. I am being paid as a consultant by the industry,
    yes.
        Mr. Shays. Right. But I respect that you are here with your
    expertise and your knowledge and the requirements that go with
    it, and I thank you.
        Dr. Fox. Yes. And indeed, the request from the industry was
    for me to look at some statistics and do some analyses of those
    numbers and see what they find.
        Now, if the findings--like I don't know if I would be here,
    but I am here and I shall see. I stand behind these
    calculations whether I am paid or not paid.
        Mr. Shays. Fair enough. Thank you.
        Dr. Fox. Now of course there is virtually no place on land
    or on sea that is totally risk-free. Still, Americans traveling
    aboard the major cruise lines that service this country can be
    assured of their personal safety.
        Now, as you know, Mr. Chairman, it is a very difficult task
    to try to derive a statistical matchmate or a standard for
    assessing the relative risk of crime on board a cruise ship
    versus some other location like a local community. A cruise
    ship is an atypical location. It is an atypical composition of
    people. It is not representative of any city in terms of age,
    race, and gender and level of affluence. And indeed, the
    climate on board a ship is sometimes quite spirited and not at
    all like the day-to-day work environment that people have in
    their homes and their home neighborhoods.
        Regardless of the methodological complexities that make it
    difficult to strike these comparisons, what I did find is that
    the number of reported serious crimes aboard cruise ships is
    extremely low no matter what benchmark or standard you use.
    Now, compared against a home community, passengers have an
    appreciably lower risk of sexual assault and robbery while
    enjoying a vacation cruise.
        Now, I recognize, as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, that it
    is very difficult to take some of these raw numbers about how
    many millions of passengers there are and translate that into a
    comparison with a community. But I think you have done it
    correctly when you say about 200,000 would be the appropriate
    number. And indeed, in the table that is attached to my written
    testimony, I do essentially that. I take the 31-plus million
    passengers over a 3-year period of time and turn that into a--
    number of about 10 million and convert that by essentially
    multiplying by 6.9----
        Mr. Shays. I don't have your testimony.
        Dr. Fox. OK. You don't?
        Mr. Shays. No.
        Dr. Fox. It is over there.
        Mr. Shays. OK, the press has it but the subcommittee
    doesn't. So we are going to see if someone will get that for
    us.
        Dr. Fox. So essentially I take that number, 10 million,
    multiply by the average length of a cruise, which is 6.9 days,
    divide that by 52, to essentially convert the ridership, the
    passengership on board to an annualized number comparable to
    the fact that you live in your home community virtually year-
    round. And there are indeed not quite 200,000, but 195,000-
    196,000 passengers, once you make that adjustment to give you a
    full-time annual equivalent.
        Adding in the size of the crew, because they can of course
    be victims of crime as well as perpetrators, you come up with a
    total population figure.
        That, then, I take the number of sexual assaults--and I
    remove the cases of what is called sexual contact, which is not
    truly a rape--I try to get at the numbers of rapes as well as
    the number of robberies for the cruise lines and that
    population that I have calculated--which turns out to be
    281,000 on an annual basis including crew and passengers,
    converted to full-time equivalent--and convert that into a
    crime rate and compare it to what the crime rate is in the
    United States for forcible rape and robbery.
        And for forcible rape, what you essentially see is that the
    rate of rape on board ships on cruises is about half that of
    the national average.
        Now, in terms of robbery--and I want to point out there is
    a little bit of distinction and clarity about this that is
    needed. In the last panel, there was discussion about thefts of
    10,000 or more and thefts that are lower than 10,000. And once
    in a while the word ``robbery'' was used by a witness. And
    these are robberies. In fact, I believe the request had to do
    with robberies, which is a confrontation between a victim and
    the robber. There is a personal confrontation, there is
    intimidation, threat----
        Mr. Shays. As opposed to theft?
        Dr. Fox. As opposed to theft, when the victim is somewhere
    else and their property is taken. This is robbery, not theft.
    Theft involves your property being taken unlawfully by someone
    when there is no intimidation, no personal confrontation
    between you and the perpetrator. Robbery is when someone
    confronts you, demands money----
        Mr. Shays. Yes, we get it. We get it.
        Dr. Fox. OK. And comparing the incidence of sexual
    assault--rape--and robbery on board cruise ships per 100,000
    population, comparing that to the United States where you do
    find that, as I said, for sexual assault the rate is half that
    of the United States. And for robbery, it is a tiny, tiny
    fraction. Robberies essentially don't happen very often on
    board cruise ships. And that makes sense because of the very
    confined area, where it is very difficult for an offender to
    get away, and the relatively secure environment that you find
    on board ship compared to your local community.
        So to conclude here, I think that the comparison with
    lightning that was struck--again, pardon the pun--before, I
    think, is quite telling. There are four sexual assaults per
    million passengers. So when someone buys a ticket on a cruise
    line, there's four----
        Mr. Shays. Wait a second. Why do you then go to a million
    passengers? Why wouldn't you say so many sexual assaults--this
    is over a 3-year period or--I mean, wouldn't it be over
    200,000, not a million?
        Dr. Fox. This is when--what is the chance that when you buy
    and ticket and you are going to spend a week on a cruise----
        Mr. Shays. Oh, I see. OK.
        Dr. Fox. When you buy a ticket and spend a week on the
    cruise, what is the chance that you will be sexually assaulted
    in that week? An individual.
        Mr. Shays. OK, fair enough. So we are not comparing to
    towns right now, we are--that is not--OK.
        Dr. Fox. Right. I am just comparing to the weather. When
    you buy a ticket for a cruise, you have a 4 in 1 million chance
    of being sexually assaulted. That is identical to the chance of
    being struck by lightning.
        Now, of course, we don't go out in a rainstorm when we take
    that----
        Mr. Shays. Wait a second. Wait a second. Isn't lightning
    over a stretch of a year?
        Dr. Fox. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. This is not a stretch over a year. This is 1
    week.
        Dr. Fox. It is the time period for which you are on that
    cruise. Now, if you spend every day on the cruise and you take
    a year-long cruise, obviously your chances increase, but most
    Americans don't spend a year on a boat, on a ship, they spend a
    week.
        Mr. Shays. I know, but I just wondered if you are being
    fair with your comparison right now. Maybe I am just not
    getting it, but it seems to me you have to multiply times 52.
        Dr. Fox. Except it also doesn't rain every day either. So
    there are a lot of days in the year when you have no chance of
    being struck.
        The reason I bring this up is just people have a sense
    that, yes, there is a certain risk of lightning striking you.
    But it is a risk that we sort of deal with, we take reasonable
    precautions in a rainstorm and a thunder-and-lightning storm.
    And all I am saying here is that, yes, there is a risk of
    sexual assault--4 in a million; there is a risk of robbery,
    which is a very tiny risk, much, much smaller than that. We
    can't--there is probably no place where there is zero risk, but
    these are rather low numbers.
        Mr. Shays. See--yes, OK. Keep going.
        Dr. Fox. Well, that is really what I have to say, is that
    when you adjust for exposure time, the chance of being
    assaulted on a cruise ship is extremely slim.
        Mr. Shays. Yes. I am not comfortable with the statistics.
    So your going through the statistics with me is partially
    valid, but there is another part that hasn't bought into the
    fact that they are legit. But we will satisfy ourselves. I
    don't know how long it will take, but we will satisfy ourselves
    either they are legitimate or they are not.
        I used to be in the Peace Corps in the Fiji Islands. There
    were cruise ships that would come and go. And it was a duty-
    free goods port. I was made aware that people would buy cameras
    at the very end and think they were getting an F-stop that was
    lower than what they were getting, and they would get on board
    the ship and the ship is about to go. It is just a different--
    you know, and they couldn't run back and quickly exchange and
    they overpaid and all that stuff.
        I just have the feeling that a lot of people don't report
    it because, the next day they are off or that afternoon they
    leave. Then they may report it later, but it doesn't get
    reported by the cruise industry. I just think there are a lot
    of other factors that come into play. It is a suspicion.
        But I would concede that if the statistics are accurate,
    the numbers are pretty low. I think that a witness like Ms.
    Kelly would not show up on the radar screen. And I think that
    when we talk about George Smith, if he was killed he would be
    called ``missing'' and not ``killed.'' So I just have problems.
        Dr. Fox. Well, also, in Greenwich, CT, which I think--is
    that your area? If rapes occur, they are not always reported
    either. There are many reasons why victims of crime don't
    report it. That could happen on land and on sea.
        [The information referred to follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.156

        Mr. Shays. I just wonder, though, if the nature of just
    being on board a week means that sometimes things just don't
    get reported that would if they were on board for a month,
    would have gotten reported. It is like, what's the point, I am
    leaving tomorrow, who the heck do I speak with, and, and, and.
        So at any rate, I am just telling you what I think and I am
    just a little suspicious of the statistics. Now we have Mr.
    Kaye who said, you know, they are required by law to report it.
    Yet we have the Government telling us they are not required by
    law to report it. That raises questions.
        So at any rate, thank you for your points about the
    statistics. At this time I am going to have Dr. Palarino just
    ask you a few questions for the record and then I am going to
    go through this document that I asked you to look at.
        Dr. Palarino. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have quick
    questions for Mr. Mandigo and Captain Wright.
        I have heard talk about a risk management office. Could you
    both explain what a risk management office is and what it does?
        Mr. Mandigo. Well, I have very little to do with the risk
    management office, but it is basically the people that would
    handle, as I understand it, the people that are making claims
    against the company. Not litigation, but people that, you know,
    feel that they have some grievance with the company. There may
    be damage to equipment that, where we have insurance, where it
    would be repaired. That is my understanding of what those
    people do.
        Dr. Palarino. Captain Wright.
        Captain Wright. Very much the same thing. We have a risk
    management department. It is a very large department that has a
    multitude of responsibilities. They are responsible for our
    insurance. They are responsible for the operation, the running
    of our medical facilities. They maintain a 24-7 watch system in
    terms of the ship's need to contact shoreside either for
    notification purposes, for--quite often and most regularly--for
    the coordination of a medical evacuation, which occurs with
    some degree of regularity. That is the number that we can call
    from the ship and be guaranteed that somebody is there who
    knows the procedures, has the telephone numbers, has the
    contacts, and can respond.
        Dr. Palarino. So the victims and the victims' families that
    testified on panel one, each one of those would have had some
    type of risk management associated with their incident. Is that
    a correct statement?
        Captain Wright. It depends on how it comes through the
    system, that it may have come in. If they filed a civil suit,
    lawsuit, then it is not going to go to risk management, it is
    going to go through a legal counsel, outside counsel, however
    it is handled. But they come in and make a claim against the
    company, yes, it would go to the risk management people.
        Dr. Palarino. So it wouldn't have gone to the risk
    management people initially. Is that a correct statement?
        Captain Wright. Well, quite possibly it could have.
        Dr. Palarino. It could have gone----
        Captain Wright. Yes, we would have--depending on the
    incident that we are referring to, we would provide the
    information, the contact information to the guest saying that
    when you get ashore, here is the contact number to followup
    this incident further.
        Dr. Palarino. Thank you.
        Mr. Gorsline mentioned a casualty assistance team. Are you
    familiar with that team or concept?
        Mr. Mandigo. I am familiar with what that concept is.
        Dr. Palarino. What would a casualty assistance team be?
        Mr. Mandigo. Basically a casualty assistance team would be
    a component of a crisis management plan, and that is when you
    have something happen, that you have designated people that
    would respond to that particular situation.
        Dr. Palarino. Is that same for Royal Caribbean?
        Captain Wright. That is correct. But I think we need to
    characterize it in the framework of being something of a larger
    event, where we need a lot of people at a scene to be able to
    deal with it. A ship was delayed, for example, coming in, if
    there were something other, not an individual incident
    occurring on board.
        Dr. Palarino. Would Mr. Mulvaney have been assigned a
    casualty assistance team?
        Mr. Mandigo. I mean, that is a----
        Dr. Palarino. He told me he was.
        Mr. Mandigo. Yes, and I say it is a mixed question. I mean,
    it just depends on a variety of circumstances.
        Dr. Palarino. Were the other victims or victims' families
    assigned a casualty assistance team?
        Mr. Mandigo. Not all victims would be assigned a, as you
    call it, a victim casualty team or whatever. They may be
    assigned a person in the company as an individual that would
    look after them, but not necessarily a formal-type process.
        Dr. Palarino. OK. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        This document that you all have looked at, the
    International Cruise Victims Association suggestions, they have
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 categories from background
    checks, the international police, security, crime scenes,
    structural enhancement, video surveillance, access security
    bracelets, missing or overboard passengers, rape kits, rape
    reporting, excursions sold and promoted, cruise lines'
    accountability, and U.S. Congress intervention.
        Tell me the area that you already do or come closest to
    doing. Which category would you say is already being covered in
    some degree?
        Mr. Mandigo. We already do parts of backgrounds. Security
    crime scenes, we essentially do all of the security crime
    scenes----
        Mr. Shays. I could say you do almost all of these to some
    degree already.
        Mr. Mandigo. That is correct. On security crime scenes, we
    effectively do all of these. For instance, we were talking
    there may be, you know, this particular check-off list, we may
    or may not be doing, but we are essentially doing everything on
    that list.
        Mr. Shays. Do you take pictures of the crime scene?
        Mr. Mandigo. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. You have an official photographer who does that?
        Mr. Mandigo. We have photographers aboard the ship, and
    that is part of the procedure, is to photograph the crime
    scene.
        Mr. Shays. Any other areas that you would say you are
    already doing?
        Mr. Mandigo. The video cameras, I mean, we do in part, not
    all. The rape kits, we do all of what the rape kits currently
    does have reported there.
        Mr. Shays. Let's go through that, then, if you say you do
    all. And it is not a long list. It says doctors who have a
    license to practice medicine must be available 24 hours, 7.
    That is true.
        No request should be refused or taken lightly. That would
    be a matter of judgment.
        Written documentation to be provided, signed and issued to
    the point. That probably you do?
        Mr. Mandigo. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. Any other area that you think you cover pretty
    well on this list?
        Mr. Mandigo. Other areas that we may have small parts of,
    but not necessarily in a majority or in total.
        Mr. Shays. What is the area that would be the most
    difficult to do in terms of being practical. Forget dollars
    right now. And I am Captain Wright as well to join in.
        Captain Wright. Sure. All right, well, I will start off. I
    would say the access security bracelets. The microchips,
    positive identification.
        Mr. Shays. I am sorry, where are we at now?
        Captain Wright. Page 2, Access Security Bracelets.
        Mr. Shays. Yes, OK.
        Captain Wright. I think it is pretty clear that while one
    could conceive that would perhaps provide some benefit, there
    are a lot of civil liberties issues and would be certainly
    something that is almost unprecedented in any other
    application.
        Mr. Shays. Let me just ask. Some folks, what goes in Las
    Vegas, stays in Las Vegas. The sense is you want to give people
    a sense of privacy. If someone goes from one cabin to another
    or something, you don't need someone tracking, hey, this guy
    went to that cabin and this person went to this cabin, or two
    couples swapped or whatever.
        Captain Wright. Sure. I think that is a reasonable
    position, yes,
        Mr. Shays. I am giving that as an example, but there could
    be a lot of examples.
        Captain Wright. Right. The technology is there. Clearly
    today it is doable. It is used in all kinds of industrial
    applications.
        Mr. Shays. It is mostly a privacy issue?
        Captain Wright. Yes, I would say so.
        Mr. Shays. OK. What would be another area?
        Captain Wright. I think there probably are some--and I am
    not the expert, but I think from a jurisdictional perspective,
    we discussed this with marshals. I mean, certainly if you had
    marshals on board, they would perhaps have some jurisdiction on
    a certain segment of the ship's population, but due to our
    international makeup on a typical cruise, both of our guests
    and of our crew members, they would most likely not have
    authority for enforcement of anything with a certain percentage
    of the crew members or passengers.
        Mr. Shays. Are most of the folks who are on a cruise ship
    Americans? I mean, are they the predominant number?
        Mr. Mandigo. Yes. I mean, we have a subsidiary line out of
    Europe where, when they sail in Europe, a majority of the
    passengers would not be American. But for the most part, they
    are U.S. citizens.
        Mr. Shays. What do you think is--I realize you can't speak
    for your company in--well, maybe you can somewhat. But what are
    the areas that you found the most intriguing? I mean, would you
    agree that this is a fairly good list?
        Captain Wright. Yes, it is an excellent document, as you
    earlier said. I think it is----
        Mr. Shays. Just give me a taste of something that you might
    feel was a logical--whether it is required by the Government or
    whether you decide to do it, if you were to take this list to
    your folks and say, you know, there is some merit here, I would
    kind of like--you know, am intrigued by this idea, what would
    be those areas that you might see that?
        Mr. Mandigo. One intriguing area, and of course this is,
    again, that authority that cruise lines don't have is this
    proposal on marshals. I mean, that is clearly well outside the
    scope of the cruise lines.
        Captain Wright. Mr. Chairman, I would agree. I would say
    that the upgrading--and we are in the process of doing that on
    an ongoing basis--of both the technologies that we are using
    and the number of CCTV cameras that are positioned around the
    ship is an area that I am sure we could improve on. Although we
    have hundreds and hundreds of cameras presently on board the
    ships, I think an audit and a review of the areas--again, going
    back to certain privacy issues--that we could perhaps increase
    some of the coverage on the vessels.
        Mr. Shays. I mean, bottom line is you are not going to have
    a camera on someone's individual balcony.
        Captain Wright. No, clearly not.
        Mr. Mandigo. No.
        Mr. Shays. But I would think in the places where other
    people would have access in public, then there would be a logic
    to the fact that you could have, and probably do have, a number
    of cameras.
        Mr. Mandigo. Correct.
        Captain Wright. Correct.
        Mr. Shays. I would appreciate it if both your companies
    would--I am requesting a more formal response in writing to
    this document because we would be looking at this document as a
    discussion vehicle.
        Captain Wright. Sure.
        Mr. Shays. If you could provide a response in the next 3 to
    4 weeks, that would be helpful.
        Captain Wright. Absolutely.
        Mr. Shays. Dr. Fox, did you want to say something?
        Dr. Fox. I was going to add something, because I heard
    earlier a discussion of changing some of the statistical
    criteria for what is to be reported and what is not to be
    reported. May I make a comment about that?
        Mr. Shays. Absolutely.
        Dr. Fox. OK. As Mr. Kaye had said previously, it is
    somewhat arbitrary as to whether you use $10,000 or $6,000 or
    $5,000, but I do urge that if a change is considered, that
    there be some reasonable threshold. I mean, for example,
    Captain Wright here inadvertently has taken my pen. Now, it is
    not really a theft because he had no intent to deprive me of
    this. And I am sure on board ship there are sunglasses and
    cameras and lots of things get lost and may get reported as
    something--someone stole my camera. That maintaining a certain
    level of threshold, make sure that what is reported is
    substantial. One of the problems that the FBI has had and now
    has is that a lion's share of the Part 1 crimes, the serious
    crimes, aren't serious. They are larcenies of $25 or $50. You
    don't want to be the victim of that, but it is not a homicide.
        Mr. Shays. Dr. Fox, I totally agree with you. But I am
    struck by the fact that a more significant statistic are not
    robberies. I saw you give him back the pen, sir.
        Dr. Fox. I am just letting him borrow it.
        Mr. Shays. After you basically dissed him. [Laughter.]
        I just wanted to make a point. You need counseling. He is
    the one who is paying your bill here.
        Dr. Fox. Yes.
        Mr. Shays. But what seems more logical to me is that a
    theft is more significant and more likely on board a ship than
    a robbery, and yet thefts are not reported unless they reach to
    a level--I mean, they don't appear to be reported.
        Dr. Fox. But there should be some level. We should not do
    like the FBI did, which is to remove the minimum threshold.
    There should be a minimum threshold or else you just are
    getting swamped with lots of very small numbers. I mean, lots
    of crimes that are very low-level severity. So whether it be
    $10,000 or $5,000 or $3,000, some decision can be made, but I
    would urge that it be some reasonable threshold.
        Mr. Shays. Now, dealing with statistics, we are told that
    the industry will go, Dr. Fox, from 10.5 million to 20 million
    in about 5 years, which is a huge increase. And Captain Wright,
    is that statistic pretty accurate?
        Captain Wright. I am not familiar with it myself, but we
    are certainly going through some remarkable growth.
        Mr. Shays. Let me just say that the statistic that has been
    thrown around to us--and maybe ``throw'' is the right word,
    because it is an estimate--that it will grow significantly in
    the next 5 years, almost double. And if that is true, Dr. Fox,
    what is your sense of what happens to the statistics? Do they
    go up proportionally, or is it likely that we would see a shift
    one way or the other?
        Dr. Fox. Well, if nothing different is done in terms of
    prevention, then one would expect that as the passenger count,
    as the number of--actually, as the number of ships increases in
    the--that the crimes on ships would increase. That is the raw
    number, the incidents. The rate shouldn't change. Hopefully,
    you know, as some of these do make sense and there are other
    ideas that the industry implements on their own, that the rate
    will decline even as the number of passengers increases.
        Mr. Shays. I believe a previous year we were told a
    statistic of 13 missing and it has jumped to 24. What happened
    to move that number up?
        Mr. Mandigo. You increased the number of years, sir, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. I thought it was 3 to 3. Is it----
        Mr. Mandigo. Originally it was 2 years.
        Mr. Shays. Oh, 2 to 3?
        Mr. Mandigo. That is correct.
        Mr. Shays. OK, thank you.
        Oh, just the last point of questioning. I leave with a
    sense that we have gone from saying statistics aren't reported,
    that were reported voluntarily, to where there is a law that
    requires it. But the industry also led me to believe that it
    was voluntary. Is this a change in tactic or a new discovery or
    what, in terms of its presentation to this committee, Captain
    Wright?
        Captain Wright. It appears to me--I was not present during
    the first hearing--however, it seems to me it was just a
    miscommunication, if you will, that we do have voluntary
    standards, we are reporting above and beyond what the law and
    the FBI specifically requests, whereas there is a component of
    our reporting that is also mandatory, as Mr. Kaye expressed
    today.
        Mr. Shays. So what we need to sort out as the subcommittee
    is what is the legal requirement and what are those
    statistics--and Dr. Fox, we may get back to you on that--versus
    what they do above and beyond. So what would be helpful is for
    both of your companies to tell us what is required by law and
    then what you do above and beyond. That would be helpful. And,
    you know, within 3 to 4 weeks would be helpful--sooner,
    obviously, but--and let me just conclude by saying, so, I have
    listened to a lot in this hearing that would tend to add to
    your side of the argument, except for the fact that we had six
    witnesses who basically felt in very real terms, and I tend to
    buy into their view, that they were and still are not treated
    with the respect you would want yourselves to be treated if you
    were going through the same experience. And so what I would
    request is we are going to monitor what kind of problems they
    continue to have. Part of our feeling of a sense that you all
    are hearing what we are saying is how they are treated. I am
    not talking in any way about financial compensation, nothing in
    that direction. I am just talking about information that
    enables them to understand what happened or didn't happen.
        So that would be my request.
        Is there any closing comment that anyone wants to make? Dr.
    Fox.
        Dr. Fox. What I would suggest--now, I am going to add an
    item which isn't on this list. And maybe it is done by some
    cruise lines, maybe it is not, but I will throw it out. It is
    based on my understanding of what we did in the criminal
    justice system. Of course, historically it had been problem of
    do victims feel like they are being listened to and do they
    feel that the criminal justice system cares about their rights?
    One of the best things was the development of victim/witness
    advocates, essentially individuals who were trained at
    communicating, listening to victims. It may not be a bad idea,
    when you have a crew size of over 1,000 or 900 or whatever the
    number is, that at least one of those individuals be trained as
    a victim/witness advocate who specifically understands how to
    communicate with victims and be their advocate.
        Mr. Shays. You know, I would like to add it to the list
    that was presented, because frankly, whether that person is on
    board ship would be helpful, an ombudsman--maybe you have
    them--but in your company. If the New York Times and other
    papers have someone who analyzes how well they are doing to
    report the news fairly, it might be, given that you represent,
    both of you together, your companies represent a huge part of
    the market. You are almost a monopoly in one sense. And I tend
    to believe when you get this big, you tend to become a little
    insensitive. And this may be a way to deal with some very real
    problems and do it on your own without the Government injecting
    itself. But someone who would be actually empowered to present
    a strong position on the part of the victim to your company.
        Captain Wright. Sure.
        Mr. Shays. If you would consider that, I think it would be
    an interesting idea.
        Captain Wright. Mr. Chairman, I think that is an excellent
    recommendation. The irony of this entire discussion is that our
    whole business, our whole product is treating people fabulously
    and making sure they have a great vacation. And the victims who
    spoke today and the experiences that they have had, the
    tragedies that they have incurred, it is inexcusable from our
    side. And each one of them, I believe, had its own element of
    wrongdoing on our part, where we did not follow our procedures,
    we did not perform as we should have performed. But these
    incidences do not represent the bulk of our operations.
        We are very proud on the statistics that are out there. And
    we are always looking for ways to improve. There is a big part
    of our maritime philosophy, if you will, of having a habit of
    continuous improvement and looking at lessons learned. And I
    can assure you that every one of these events, at least from
    our company's perspective, will be analyzed as to where did we
    mess up and how can we avoid doing that in the future. Because
    it is certainly the last thing that we want to see happen, but
    unfortunately there are examples where it has occurred.
        Typically, when you go and do an investigation--I know the
    NTSB, NASA, the military is very familiar with this--you
    discover almost always there is an error chain. Very rarely is
    it one single mistake that one single person or crew member
    made that resulted in something happening. If you go back and
    do the detail work, you are going to find it is a series of
    things where the system failed, there was a systemic failure.
    And you need to understand that. That is something that we do
    on a regular basis, and I think the chairman's subcommittee is
    helping to that end.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you. Any other comments before we adjourn?
        Mr. Mandigo. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. Let me again thank you for staying so late and
    being so patient. We do appreciate it. And if there are still
    any families here who have had some experiences that they would
    like for me to know about and my staff, we will just stay
    around and talk to you privately about anything that you may
    want to tell us.
        So with that, this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 7:47 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Additional information submitted for the hearing record
    follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.157

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.158

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.159

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.160

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.161

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.162

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.163

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.164

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.165

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.166

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.167

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8532.168