i led a congressional delegation to the mideast in europe and saw those security loopholes firsthand in places like the istanbul airport, the transit hub for foreign fighters and throughout western europe. we found widespread failures. many countries were not scre screening travelers against terrorist watch lists. they were not checking passports for fraud. and didn't have access to the intelligence they needed to stop the, our task force issued over 50 recommendations for fixing these vulnerabilities in america and overseas and today, i'm pleased to announce we are turning these recommendations into law. we are start iing with the bill this week to tighten the visa waiver program. which allows travelers from 38 countries to come to the united states for 90 days without getting a visa. and think about that.

the majority of the paris attackers had western passports. with those western passports, they could get into the united states without a visa. this bill has strong bipartisan support and i believe will address the problems identified. this people will also a force high risk individuals who have been to terrorist hot spots to go through a more rigorous screening process before coming to america. it will strenten intelligence information sharing with our allies, which is lacking and crack down on passport fraud. it will also force visa waiver countries to ramp up counterterrorism screening of travelers. but this is just the beginning. over the coming weeks, we will introduce a slate of new bills passed on the findings of the task force to keep terrorists from crossing our borders. this will include enhancing the security of the visa process.

developing a national strategy to combat terrorist traveling, improving information sharing here at home and helping foreign partners address security weaknesses. we will push forward as well for legislation to enhance airport security, industry minded homeland security into a more focused counterterrorism organization. our government must also move swiftly to improve the screening of syrian and iraqi refugees. isis has said in their obserwn s they want to exploit the refugee process to infiltrate the west. they did exactly that to attack paris. i can reveal today that the united states government has information to indicate that individuals tied to terrorist groups in syria have already attempted to gain ak tesz to our country through the u.s. refugee program. i drafted legislation to create the most robust national

security vetting process in u.s. history to screen syrian and iraqi refugees. and a it passed the house with a bipart an san veto proof majority. in light of the threats we face, i urge is senate to act on our legislation and for the president to sign it. extremists are not only disguising their travel to evade detection, they're also concealing their communication. no longer do terrorists plot by using couriers and caves. today, they hide their messages in what's called dark space. using encrypted applications and other secure platforms to evade law enforcement and intelligence services. this is one of the greatest counterterrorism challenges of the 21st century. and it is one of the biggest fears that keeps me up at night. when the administration says there are no known credible

threats to the homeland, it means less today than it once did. because we cannot stop what we cannot see. paris was the perfect example. the terrorist reportedly used secure communications and they managed to stay under the radar. we should be careful not to vilify encryption it, which is essential, but i've been briefed on cases where terrorism communicateded a darkness where we couldn't see the communications, we couldn't shine a light on these communications, even with a lawful warrant. unfortunately, there are no simple answers to this complex problem. and this is more than a privacy versus security challenge. it is a security versus security challenge. a knee jerk reaction could weaken internet protections and

privacy for every day americans, but doing nothing puts american lives at risk and makes it easier for terrorists and criminals to escape justice. it is time for congress to act because the white house has failed to bring all parties together to find solutions. that is why today, i am calling for the creation of a national commission on security and technology challenges in the digital age. i plan to unveil legislation soon that would establish this commission under a congressional authorization and would bring together the technology sector, privacy and civil liberty groups, academics and the law enforcement community to find common ground. this will not be like other blue ribbon panels. established and forgotten. the threats are real. so, this legislation will require the commission to develop a range of action rule

recommendations that protect privacy and public safety at the same time. finally, most importantly, we must recognize that the best homeland defense is a good offense. we will not win the war against islamist terror until we take the fight to the enemy and deprive them of their safe havens. this was not the top, this was the top recommendation of the 9/11 commission. yet, we have failed to live up to it. we need to drain the swamp in syria and iraq or the swamp will come to us. unfortunately, the president lacks a coherent military strategy. and he is tied our generals hands behind their backs. indeed, right now, we have a policy of containment. a winning strategy is to defeat and destroy isis and to provide the resources to do exactly that.

these are the immediate steps we need to take to turn the tide. first, we must remove the limitations that have kept us from hitting isis as hard as we can. this means a loosening the rules of engagement from air. letting our special operations forces get directly involved in the fight. and arming opposition groups more quickly and completely. second, we must carve out the space needed to protect the moderate opposition and to alleviate the humanitarian crisis. i've spoken with the ambassadors from turkey, iraq, jordan and saudi arabia. and they agree with me that we need a no fly zone over parts of syria to provide safe zones where refugees can be relocated and protected. third, the united states must lead a broader global coalition on the ground to destroy isis and syria.

and one that includes nato and features deeper involve m from regional allies. this includes our sunni air partners, who must help build a ground force to clean up their own backyard and to protect their own religion from these fanatics. we must also deal with russia. after the downing of russian airlin airliner, i hope mr. putin chooses to engage more constructively. he has serious homeland security issues of his own. and we have a shared interest in fighting islamist terror. but before we think about working more closely with the russians, strict conditions must be met. mr. putin needs to push aside towards the exit door. cease military operations against moderate rebels and bring an end to russia's provocations against nato allies. only then can moscow become a

potential partner in destroying isis. in the end, though, our military strategy must be combined with a political strategy to end this conflict. last month, negotiators in vienna brokered an 18-month timeline for free elections in syria. while i am skeptical about whether this plan will succeed, we can't give up. this crisis only ends when the syrian people have retaken their country and can provide the level of security needed to clear extremists from their territory. sadly, we will still need to go further. since the president failed to develop an on the ground plan to confront isis, we now need an around the globe strategy to defeat them. this is no longer just about syria and iraq. it's about stopping the march of isis across northern aftrica.

keeping it from getting a foothold in south asia and preventing countries like afghanistan from falling back into darkness. yet, in all these places, president obama's more inclined to tell us what he won't do rather than what he will. that is why we need a global strategy to win the war against islamist terror. and a president prepared to commit the resources and political will to make it a reality. terrorist and the targets of our people cannot stand. in return for barbaric violence, we must be prepared to deliver justy. it has been said that who we are is who we were. everyone in this room is tied to the greatest generation. and era of americans who showed unflappable courage while staring down evil as it spread across the globe.

we cannot forget their courage is our heritage. it is a distinlgt element of the american spirit. it is not enough though for us to have inherited their valor. as we embark on another long generational struggle, we must also summon their resolve. and that means we cannot be satisfied with quick vktryes and temporary safety in the war against islamist terror. we must be prepared to keep radicals on the run and stop them from passing the torch to a new generation of terrorists. my father was a bomb deere in world war ii and flew missions. i had the honor to visit normandy last may with a congressional delegation and lay a wreath as they played taps among the white crosses as we went to omaha beach to see where

3,000 american soldiers were killed to see point de hawk, where we claimed the cliffs to defeat the nazis, one of the most inspiring, powerful, emotional moments of my lifetime. and while i know it was bravery of men like him that won that war, he taught me that it was our nation's fortitude that won the peace. last month, the president said that he was quote, not interested in pursuing some notion of american leadership or america winning in this long war. he thinks these are mere slogans. why differ with the commander in chief because what i do know, what i do believe in deeply, is that the security of our homeland and the free world depends on our determination to lead. for in this idea logical battle,

i know we will prevail because in the final analysis, our ideas prevail. thank you so much for having me here today. >> at this time, wed like to take some questions. from the audience. if you have a question, for the chairman and we'll address them. thank you. >> yes. >> i wonder if i can ask you to address more of the commission. it seems like you're portraying the problem as problem of smart people not talking, but most of the smart people involved in making encryption say there's nothing to talk about, that maybe weakening of it will be exploited by hackers, so really

no further debate worth having. resond to that. >> that's a great yes. i have sort of played the role of settle diplomacy, if you will, between federal law enforcement, the intelligence community and silicon valley. it's a very complex issue. i think one that initially lawmakers thought there was an easy legislative fix, where we amend a a statute until we found out that providing a back door on everybody's iphone was not going to be a very good strategy. not only would it provide a back door for the government, but also for hackers. so, you've noticed that the language of the fbi director and the language of the secretary of homeland security has shifted to trying to find a technology solution to this problem. i will not tell you it's an easy solution.

but i've had very in depth discussions that i believe there a are alternatives, there are some solution to this problem and i think the inherent problem and the reason why i'm advocating the formation of this commission is because of the reluctance of both parties to sit in the same room together. and so, what this legislation provides in fact, it will mandate that the parties all relevant parties sit in the same room together and in a very short period of time, provide the congress with solutions and recommendations to deal with what i considered in my remark, one of the most difficult challenges in this century in dealing with counterterrorism and basically criminal behavior. if we don't do anything, title three wiretaps and devices will become a thing of the past.

when we saw the encrypted apps to be paris attacker's iphones, telegram, when eight attackers and numerous cospon spir tor, foreign fighters from syria can do something like that and it's completely under the ray car screen, we know why it went undete undetected. because they were communicating in a dark space. in a space that we can't shine a light on to see these commune cases, even if we have a court order. we must solve this problem. i agree with you. it's not an easy one to solve. i sit now with top experts like keith alexander, one of the brightest minds on this issue. but i do believe that if first step is getting them, forcing them to get together in the same room to work out these differences and find a solution. i can't say that i have the

solutions to the problem, but i know that the experts know how to get there and that's what that legislature will provide. >> david smith of the guardians. just a couple of questions. you mentioned new evidence about people with ties to isis. trying to enter the u.s. through the refugee program. do you have any sort of detail on that and the second question is would you categoringly rule out sending ground troops. >> the refugee crisis is a symptom of a larger problem. the root cause of the problem is the civil war in siri and the creation of isis after the lack of leadership and having the status of forces agreement and failure to engage maliki in any political dialogue and there by, disenfranchising the sunni tribes anymore. most chose isis and we saw them

drop their weapons in mosul because they didn't want to fight isis. the refugee problem is just a symptom of that. we were briefed earlier this week. by the intelligence community and i don't want to get into specifics. to protect my sources, but by the intelligencesyrians, isis s isis members in syria, have attempted to exploit it to get into the united states. that was very courageous for them to come forward with this. to tell me about this personally. given the political debate on the hill. with the syrian refugee bill. but i think it demonstrates why that bill is so important. if we now have direct evidence and intelligence, they not only to infiltrate europe, which is easier to do, but to infiltrate to get into the united states. to me, that's very disturbing.

we won't resolve the problem of the refugee crisis until we dole diehl with you know, when i talked to the sunni arab nations and ambassadors, they want to know that we have a strategy. they say, mr. chairman, we'll put a ground force in, the turks, jordanians, saudi, but they want assurances we have the military objective and that assad has to be part of the solution and the political situation has to be resolved on the ground and until we have that strategy, we're going to continue to have this problem. i also urge the gulf states to take these refugees. so, all these ambassadors agreed that a protected zone if you will in syria through a no fly was the best way to deal with the refugee, so they don't leave syria. a refugee by definition is somebody that wants to go back

to their country. if they go to europe or the united states, they'll never return. i also implored the saudis in the gulf states to take these refugees. they have the where with all, these are sunni arabs fleeing from isis primarily. they claim they have taken refugees, but it's a bit of a political spin on their part because in fact, what they've taken in are really guest workers. not in fact refugees. coming out of syria. and so, what's happened, turkey has over 2 million, jordan has over a million. jordan can't absorb this. and now, europe has half a million unvetted refugees pouring into europe. we know that two of the paris attackers exploited those routes to get into back into europe and how many more are out there, you don't know what you don't know.

>> i wanted to ask a little bit more, you said you were going to zras some future bills with financing the task force. you have a refugee bill that passed the house, the possibility of more vetting with the visa waiver program. any of those you want to talk about? >> yeah, you know, basically, i think one of the biggest highlights and i want to thank the chairman here for working on it. there's no national strategy to deal with combatting terrorism in foreign fighters. we don't have a strategy. so, i think you're going to see a bill in the near future that deals with that issue. combatting violent extremism. another bill we passed unanimously out of our committee. it is not a priority. or focus within the administration. to basically combat violent

extremism, so, what am i talking about? the warning signs. the boston bomber was so radical that he was kicked out of his mosque by his imam and yet, we didn't know about that. there are always the, every one of these cases when you go back and look at them, there are early signs and flags and warning signs of radicalization. so, we need greater community outreach. may not be the government itself. when i was a federal prosecutor, i'd walk into a mosque with the fbi. it's a chilling effect. what we need is our community leaders engaged working with the public private partnership to engage these communities in the muslim communities to identify early signs of a radicalization. there is no priority. to do this. right now in this country. in fact, when we looked at the total manpower within the department of homeland security, we have less than two dozen federal employees even working on the issue. now, in fairness to jay johnson,

he has started to elevate this program. but i think this bill whether we passed it on the floor or put it in the omnibus, i think the dark space issue is one of the most complex, dangerous issues out there. when i would look at their communications, when they radicalize somebody and get a hook on to them. on the internet, they say let's go to another messaging box and then let's go into tour. or let's go into these dark platforms. at that point, even if we have a wiretap, which i used to do, we can't see the communications at all. all we see is encrypted space, so, point o point, we may know someone in rocket is talking to someone in paris or belgium or washington, d.c. or new york, but we can't see what they're saying and if you can't see what they're saying, we can't stop

it. so, when they say there's no specific and credible threat, that's what we don't know and what is communicated in the dark space that we don't know right now as i speak that could be plotting a terrorist attack like a paris style attack. i have been a critic of this administration for down playing the threat. i think the campaign narrative has been all along, you get out of iraq and afghanistan and shut down guantanamo and when isis reared its ugly head, he couldn't get his head wrapped around it because it wasn't supposed to happen, it was supposed to go away. but you have to confront evil where it exists. and that's where we have failed i think as a nation to lead in a post world war ii superpower, lead as a superpower. lead as a superpower to get coalition forces to defeat one of the greatest evils in my lifetime.

>> on the right, in the center. >> hi, good afternoon. i'm with the center for complex operations here. when you were actually placed nicely off your comments about foreign fighters, you mentioned that foreign fighters going back and americans coming back to the u.s. are either being arrested or ticking time bombs. is there anything to look at those individuals differently as assets, people that come back disillusioned, maybe use them as interrogation platforms. >> yeah, without getting into too much with the fbi does investigatively, obviously, and in my career, we would follow people. you know, you get to a certain point where you have to take down the individual. but prior to the takedown, there's certain intelligence value to monitor and follow them.

so, with the 50 that have returned, the ones we can charge with due process under the constitution, we do and for the ones we can't, we monitor them. and in monitoring them, we do gain great intelligence value in doing that, but once they get to a certain point, we have to take them down. which is why you see again over 70 isis related arrests. over the past year because the fbi and homeland have decided to go in and take out the threat before it could you know, they could attack americans. and so, it's a delicate ambulance. a lot of my constituents say why aren't you rolling all them up and throwing them in jail. but we have the constitution, can't just arrest people without evidence. and you know, in some of these people are not quite sure what they were doing over there.

you know, were they working with doctors without borders are doing something nor nefarious, and since we don't have the intelligence on the ground at quad to know what they were doing, this is the whole problem. you don't know what you don't know. with the syrian refugees, we don't know anything about these people because we have no databases in syria, no sb intelligence on the ground. we're getting better intelligence, unfortunately, the russians are blowing it up. they don't have rules of engagement, but to answer your question, a very good intelligence value to monitoring an individual without the proper predicate to arrest. but enough to monitor them with predication to monitor their commune cases. but again, if they're going to sboo a dark flat form with an app, you can't see what they're saying. this is a new phenomena. we used to think about couriers, looking at foreign fighters who

can do more sophisticated attack like paris, but what do you do about the guy that's radicalizes over the internet in the united states in a dark platform that you can't see what they're saying. it's very pervasive. they're in their 20s. they're young, sophisticated social media organization that have gone viral. janed hussein was only 23 years old. the one that did the attacks, the new york plots. the one sending out all the directives to kill, come to syria or kill where you are, kill military. he was taken out by an air strike. but his wife is still alive. and there are others that have replaced him that form sort of cyber jihadists army if you will, out of internet cafes. and you look at 200,000 isis tweets per day. that are going around the world.

this is not just european u.s. problem. it's a global phenomenon and it's spreading at broad band speed. >> one last question. >> take a few more. >> dealing with cybersecurity issue, talk about official threat and honestly, concentrations on isis, but there's a much broader challenge and often people talk about avoiding the next cyber -- so, thank you for your leadership on cybersecurity. would you want to expand a little bit about some of the challenges there. >> i focused on islamists terror, but the cyber threat, you know, terrorists, san bernardino, some of these could be one man two to-man operations. a cyber attack if done right as

an act of cyber warfare, could be devastates and the con quenss far more severe in terms of the capability to bring things down, so we have the criminal theft of i.p, the espionage, we know that china attacked opm and stole 20 million security clearances. greatest act of espionage by a nation state against the united states in the cyber space. no response. to that. other than a couple of meetings with them to work things out. but the power grids, it's the stock exchange, financial sector, energy sector, all tied to the internet, we are tied more to the internet than any other nation and therefore, we are most vulnerable to a cyber attack because of that. we are in a conference with the senate as i speak to pass an information sharing bill that

will allow both the federal government and private sector to share these malicious codes with liability protection, which is a key and it's a voluntary program, but to share these codes in a safe harbor within the civilian portal within the department of homeland security. we're hopeful, this may be a biggest, most significant cyber legislation ever passed by the congress and it needs to be done now because the threat is so severe. if we don't pass it now, we are going to get hit. sony attack was very destructive. russian organized criminal activity, target, home depot attacks. it's finally getting the taen s attention of the american people and again, the is that the, we're trying to get to a middle ground between house and senate right now as i speak and i'm oth mystic we'll get there. but it's absolutely critical we

pass it and the white house, you know, i've been critical. of them in my speech, but on this issue, i must say, the white house has been very, a very good partner this trying to get this accomplished. >> the other question. >> you talk about how this is on our streets and the directive attack where you are. make it abroad. as we've seen with san bernardino and throughout the last few years with attacks on u.s. military bases and paris, that's sometimes been done with guns. the white house as you know has proposed using watch lists or the no fly list to try to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and you know about the way these watch lists work.

is there some version of some watch list that you think you could use. >> let me say first. terrorist groups like that, when someone purchases a firearm, there's a background check and the fbi will know if this person's on the list and they factor that in, and if there's some reason under the current they do. this is a very complicated issue because sometimes, people are put on the watch list just based on suspicious and you're talking about denying your fundamental constitutional right based on that. if there's insufficient evidence to issue a warrant for their arrest, to me, there's not

enough evidence to deny a basic second amendment constitutional right. having said that, make no mistake that the fbi sees somebody on one of thiz lists and they can't they can't current law, the purchase cannot be denied, they will obviously be monitored to prevent any f further potential terrorist attack from occurring. one bill that i'm a cosponsor of, all these cases, they're either mental illness orris is related, i know congressman tim murphy has mental health legislation. martha mcsally has a bill that simply says if you have been adjudicated mentally defected under current law, you cannot purchase a firearm. when i was up in new york a month ago, after one of the shootings and they you know, they have a training to deal

with active shooters, there are so many of these cases that are not put into the system. for instance, the navy yard shooter has been adjudicated mentally deficient or defective under the law and yet, was able to purchase a firearm because his information was not put in the system. this bill and senator cornyn has a companion in the senate, would provide funding to help ramp up the process to make sure anybody that has been found by a judge, not just someone who goes to a doctor because they want counseling, you can see the fine line. if wrou get denied a second amendment right because you went to seek counseling for an issue, which there are probably people in this room that have done that, this, the standard is the judge who has kdeclared that person. anybody that's found to be

judged as mentally defective is put into the system and i fully support that. i think we have time for one more, then close it up. take these two at the end. >> thanks for being here today. i'm a student here. as we expand our antiisis efforts, both domestically and internationally, how do you see us prevent thg from becoming a christian versus muslim crusade. >> well, i think that's a very good point. you probably have been to the region. as have i. we are the infidel. our presence many times, provokes it. bin laden looked at the infidel on muslim holy ground. so, we have to be careful of that. i don't think we're going to put 100,000 u.s. combat into the

region. but what i am calling for are the special forces embedded with indigenous forces and having a strategy that can work in dealing with assad. and having the people that can guide the targets and not doing this zero collateral damage. 75% of our shortage were termed without firing their rockets. you know, we were dropping leaf to the drivers of these oil tankers, warning them in advance we're going to strike them. i think if you're driving an oil tanker, you're not really a civili civilian, you're working for isis. and i think changing the rules of engagement would go a long ways. we haven't dealt with the terrorist financing. they're making a million dollars a day with the oil in eastern syria and they're taking it into turkey and we've done nothing to

stop that. now, just recently, we've started to take out those targets, but the idea that we have to send a leaflet warning in advance is not in my judgment, you're either all in or not. the doctrine applies, but i think we have to be very careful with religious rhetoric. it's incumbent upon the sunni arab nations to stand up and we've carried their water for too long and it's imperative for them to stand up. it's their backyard. and they need to, they need to protect their own religion from the perversion that's taking place by isis and they're allowing 50,000 isis to dictate a worldwide religion. and it's incumbent upon them to deal with this as well. and they have a lot, they need to have a lot more skin in the game f you will, than they

currently do because i think they have a lot more at stake. than anybody. but i do think you're right. i think we have to be careful about this rhetoric and you k w know, people in my business are guilty of doing that. and i think that just enflames and provokes it even more. you look at president bush, i thought tried to handle that pretty well. we're not condemning all muslims. it's a perversion of their relation. he was very careful in his verbiage and how he dealt with that issue and i would say that some politicians out there are irresponsible in that rhetoric, which just enflames it and enflames the conflict and gets further recruits for the movement of isis. there's a reason why they're pouring in from 100 different nations right now.

and they want us, they want the heavy combat presence there because they know they're going to get more recruits coming in. in fact, that's their goal. where was that last one? yeah. this is really the last one. >> a quick point about the syrian refugees, the intel community had told you there had been people trying to come boot u.s. that are associated with isis, does that speak to the current vetting process then? and also, i mean, this morning, secretary johnson said there's an incredibly thorough process for vetting these refugees and i know we've had the director to have fbi saying there's things we don't know, 100%, the process is not 100% -- advocate for, would you say added to the process. >> what we, i mean, i introduced this legislature not for my own

edification or my own thinking. i based it, introduced it based on upon testimony from the fbi director and quite frankly, the secretary of homeland security and the dni who said we can't, we don't have a proper vetting system in place that we don't know who these people are, that we don't have systems in place, that we don't have intelligence, proper databases and all we're seeing is just like with the iraqi refugee, we put a hold on it for six months so we could get a system right, we are call frg a more robust vetting process and assurances from them that they can vet them and most significantly, hold them responsible and accountable by having the three sign and certify that they're not a risk to national security. that would be the secretary of homeland security, the fbi director and director of

national bell where she knows. it's amazing how they maybe have somehow backed off, but i can pull the transcriptions. it's real. i think the american people want and deserve this. i think it's why you saw 50, there would have been 10 democrats joining us if miss pelosi hadn't whipped so hard against it, but we had almost 50 democrats and part of it was because the presentation for their conference was not purr swasive. they asked the secretary, why won't you sign off and the answer was it's a lot of paperwork and staff. it's not workable situation. i think you're dealing with a very unique population here. and we're not talking about all refugees, we're talking about a very unique population. is isis is headquartered, we know isis has said this their own words they want to exploit it, infiltrate the west.

we have intelligence now recently indicating they want to exploit coming into the united states and i think in light of all that, it's a responsible thing to do. we're not, this legislature could have been a lot more draconian. it was very measured, very well balanced. which is why i think that's why we made it bipartisan and got a super majority to withstand a veto because it just makes common sense and the american people want to make sure we can properly vet them. obviously, the mothers and children, again, get through a vetting process, but the military aged male has to go through a more robust vetting before you bring him in the united states. i don't want that on my head. bringing someone in who conducts a terrorist attack like two of the iraqi refugees did. we just want to make sure we're doing this in a safe,

responsible. we're a compassionate nation, but have a duty to protect them and do this in the safest, most responsible way that we can. well, thanks so much for being here. appreciate it. on our next "washington journal," we'll get your reaction to tuesday night's gop debate. and talk to michigan congress -- the federal budget and discuss domestic terrorism. on the spending bill and federal budget. the fight against isis and the 2016 presidential race. "washington journal" is live, you can join the conversation.

narrative of a lightweight grade b actor, which is what ford said about himful. turning prematurely orange. even with the successes, historians have consistently raided reagan law. i believe out of idea logical bias. >> sunday night, historian craig shirley discusses his book, last act, a look at reagan's life after leaving the white house. >> i like to write about reagan because i grew up in the '80s. the house in time for us. but i also write about the facts. i don't make things up. and i don't believe that ed niece or luke canter makes things up. i think, too, that we've succeeded in repositioning people's thinking about reagan so it was the picture that

emerges is of a very serious, deep thinking, considerate solistous. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q and ark. abigail fillmor was the first first lady to work outside the home, teaching in a private school. he created the first white house library. she was marketed as a color and stores sold clip on bangs to women eager to replicate our style. and nancy reagan as a young actress saw her name mistakenly on the blacklist of communist sympathize sympathizers. she appealed to ronald reagan for help and later became his wife. these stories and amore are featured in first lady, presidential historians on the