DHS U/S HUTCHINSON'S OCT 1 MEETING WITH EXTERNAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 004332

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EB/TRA, AND INL
STATE PLEASE PASS DHS FOR U/S HUTCHINSON, A/S VERDERY, AND
CLAYTON
DOJ FOR SWARTZ AND BURROWS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ASEC EAIR EWWT PHSA PTER EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: DHS U/S HUTCHINSON'S OCT 1 MEETING WITH EXTERNAL
RELATIONS DG LANDABURU

Sensitive but unclassified, entire text.


Summary
--------------


1. (SBU) DHS Undersecretary for Border and Transportation
Security Asa Hutchinson met External Relations Director
General Eneko Landaburu October 1 in Brussels. Hutchinson
told Landaburu that the EU and U.S. need to stand shoulder to
shoulder even when we do not agree to show we are working
together to overcome differences. Landaburu agreed with
Hutchinson that more communication with European and U.S.
publics on Homeland Security was important but warned that
the two sides should not paper over real disagreements in
joint appearances. Hutchinson noted that DHS was working on
longer term projects like an international trusted traveler
program. Landaburu expressed his appreciation for U.S.
efforts to raise awareness of the US-VISIT program with
Europeans but noted skepticism over the US VISIT system and
welcomed the roll out of "Secure Flight" before cautioning
that the Commission would have to review the program.
Landaburu noted that the Commission proposed a paper in ICAO
on PNR and Hutchinson agreed that ICAO should be considered
as a place to discuss global standards for transfer of PNR.
Hutchinson noted DHS's satisfaction with the current U.S.-EU
agreement. The EU side welcomed the postponement of the
October 2004 deadline for including biometric data in
passports but asked for additional time. Hutchinson agreed
to look into the appointment of a "trusted third party" to
review international PNR transfers currently under discussion
between the U.S. and European Commission. Landaburu thanked
the U.S. for arranging an informational meeting with EU
countries not participating in the Visa Waiver Program.

Action items coming out of the meeting included:

--- U/S Hutchinson committed that the U.S would discuss the
results of the November test of "Secure Flight" with EU
officials.

--- U/S Hutchinson agreed to look into the appointment of a
"trusted third party" to review international PNR transfers
under discussion between the U.S. and European Commission and
to review what other loose ends remain before full compliance
with the U.S.-EU PNR agreements is possible, including the
finalization of a sensitive data list that the Commission
owes the U.S. End Summary.

Joint Communications Strategy
--------------


2. (SBU) Hutchinson told Landaburu he appreciated
participating in the Hague Justice Ministerial and he had
added Brussels to his trip to strengthen coordination with
the EU. He hoped that the U.S. and EU could begin to develop
initiatives together as well as communicate jointly to
publics as a part of this initiative. The U.S. and EU
together would be more effective addressing security
concerns. Landaburu said he appreciated Hutchinson's
efforts at building ties with his European counterparts. The
EU was currently stressing a member state driven security
policy, and the Commission was involved in this process.
Still Landaburu believed that Hutchinson would find strong
partners with JHA DG Faull and TREN DG Lamoureux, as well as
the member states. A frank U.S.-EU Policy Dialogue on Border
and Transport Security (PDBTS) would be necessary on the many
security initiatives DHS was contemplating. Landaburu added
that the EU needed to balance the need for increased security
with citizens' rights to privacy. European public opinion as
part of a global trend had not been keen on the security
changes developing in the United States. Landaburu added
that he did not want to use a joint press conference with
language constructed to paper over U.S.-EU differences to
give arguments to those that do not support needed security
enhancements. Hutchinson agreed that both sides needed to be
realistic. The U.S. and EU could work together in some areas
and be honest about those areas where they disagreed.

US VISIT
--------------


3. (SBU) Hutchinson noted that post-Madrid the pressure for
strengthened immigration controls in Europe seemed to be
growing. The U.S. had adopted the US VISIT system to collect
biometric data on visitors more quickly than had the EU, but
he believed that the EU would adopt a similar system. The
U.S. would serve as a lightening rod for criticism, until
such systems came to be commonplace. Hutchinson understood
this role. He said DHS was working to ensure the US VISIT
system ran well. An important next step would be development
of an internationally recognized trusted traveler system that
would allow publics to see that the technology also
facilitated travel.


4. (SBU) Landaburu said he was grateful for Hutchinson's
efforts to raise awareness of the US VISIT program in Europe,
thereby "answering" Commissioner Patten and Vitorino's
September 8 letter to Secretaries Powell and Ridge on the
subject. While, in principle, the Commission had no
objection to the enrolling of Visa Waiver travelers in US
VISIT, whether the policy will create a backlash among EU
travelers depends in large part on how DHS implements the
system. Landaburu added that having to submit to a finger
scan would be a shock to some. The Commission had already
received complaints from European travelers over treatment at
U.S borders. Landaburu said he had to wait about an hour at
immigration at Dulles earlier in the week. EU Consumer
groups remain skeptical of how DHS safeguards the data it
collects.


5. (SBU) Hutchinson said he was concerned about European
skepticism, and bad stories about inspector performance would
make implementation more difficult. DHS wanted to be
responsive. It had already made changes by training
inspectors and giving them more discretion. While a
zero-tolerance policy for minor infractions had been
implemented at the border following the 9/11 attacks, DHS
realized that this had gone too far and reversed the decision.

"Secure Flight"
--------------


6. (SBU) Hutchinson noted the recent roll out of the privacy
impact assessment on the "Secure Flight" program. The
Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening Program (CAPPS II)
had created significant controversy in Europe. DHS had been
responsive to those concerns with "Secure Flight". The
prescreening function had been adjusted dramatically in the
modification of the CAPPS II system to create "secure
flight". The key was to create a better mechanism to compare
passenger names against a terrorist watch list. In "Secure
Flight" a commercial database would not necessarily be used.


7. (SBU) Landaburu noted that the EU had concerns with the
design of CAPPS II and appreciated the information the
Commission had received from the U.S. on "Secure Flight".
The modifications were positive, but the Commission will
likely need additional information. Landaburu asked whether
the system would definitely use European sourced PNR for
domestic flights and how exactly data collected for "Secure
Flight" would be used. Hutchison told Landaburu that the
"Secure Flight" test would take place in November, European
sourced historical PNR data from June 2004 would be used as
it would be impossible to determine which data was not
'domestic', and that DHS would discuss the results of the
test with the Commission. All interested parties would have
an opportunity to comment following the test. (Comment: USEU
previously passed the DHS Privacy Notices on the "Secure
Flight " test to the Commission 9/30)

PNR in ICAO
--------------


8. (SBU) Landaburu asked Hutchinson his views on developing
a global standard on international transfer of PNR, noting
that European travel agents were asking for a standard out of
fear that proliferation of PNR requests from governments will
raise the cost of traveling. The EU would seek a better
definition of PNR within an ICAO framework. Hutchinson noted
that he saw ICAO examination of PNR as a benefit to aviation
security but stated that the U.S. is satisfied with the
current US-EU agreement on PNR. (Comment: USEU passed the
Commission Paper on developing a PNR standard in ICAO to
Washington Agencies 9/23).


APIS
--------------


9. (SBU) Landaburu added that DHS Assistant Secretary
Verdery spoke at the September SLCG on the development of a
regulation requiring airlines to transfer APIS data to
DHS/CBP before a flight departs. The EU wanted to look at
the implications of this information. The Commission's
initial reaction was that such a requirement would complicate
preparations and timing for U.S.-bound flights. Hutchinson
confirmed that the U.S. was considering the change. He noted
that currently, CBP received flight manifest data 15 minutes
after a U.S.-bound flight departed. Some passenger data was
available earlier, but a terrorist could escape a pre-takeoff
check by arriving at the last minute. Some way was needed to
correct the last-minute problem. It could be a matter of
educating passengers to provide their data earlier without
necessarily a longer wait at the airport. DHS is looking at
requiring manifest data 60 minutes prior to takeoff to enable
a check to be done before departure, but airlines have
already told DHS that a 60-minute rule would require that a
plane's door be shut 75 minutes prior to departure.
Landaburu noted that such a change would cause disruptions to
passengers arriving at an airport from connecting flights.
Hutchinson noted the problem and added that DHS is looking at
implications and gathering more information.

Biometric Passport Deadline
--------------


10. (SBU) RELEX Director Richard Wright said the EU was
happy about the one-year extension until October 26, 2005 of
the law mandating inclusion of biometric data in passports,
but that a year would not be sufficient. Hutchison noted
that the Congressional deadline was firm, calling it
"political gamesmanship." As the deadline grew nearer,
U.S.-EU discussions would continue. Hutchinson hoped that
both sides could work hard to meet the deadline. Wright
suggested that the EU and U.S. could work jointly on the
matter adding that the Community had 25 administrations to
manage in this regard. Hutchinson added that the U.S. was
testing biometric passport readers with European
participation. Working together, this effort sends a good
message.

Trusted Third Party
--------------


11. (SBU) Wright added that DHS A/S Verdery had also
mentioned onward transfers of PNR data and the need to come
up with a "trusted third party" to oversee those transfers.
Wright noted that with the court case undecided, the U.S. and
Commission remained under the spotlight. DHS Advisor Maria
Clayton noted the U.S. was still discussing the issue
internally. The DHS Privacy office would conduct the joint
review. Hutchinson added that he would look into the issue
and asked whether the delay in appointing the trusted third
party would have any affect on the Parliament ECJ case
against the PNR agreements. U.S. Unit Head Gunnar Weigand
said he could not assess the affect the delay would have, but
any irregularity in implementation would add to the
Commission's vulnerability before its opponents. Clayton
noted that to date, there have been no foreign transfers of
PNR data. She added that the U.S. was also seeking the list
of sensitive data to be filtered from PNR records from the
Commission.

Visa Waiver
--------------


12. (SBU) Landaburu closed by welcoming the U.S. initiative
setting up an October 18 meeting of EU countries not
participating in the visa waiver program. Hutchinson replied
that he hoped the meeting would help the non-VWP countries'
to understand the requirements they must meet to join the
program. He told Landaburu that he understood the non-VWP
countries' requests created a problem for the EU, and that he
hoped the countries fully understood the criteria for
membership and could develop a plan for how our requirements
could be met.

Scott