(CNN) -- Congress kicked off a special lame-duck session Monday -- and a partisan battle over the fate of the nation's Big Three automakers.

Workers leave a General Motors Powertrain plant in Warren, Michigan, last week.

Specifically, Senate Democrats were trying to earn GOP support for their proposed bailout of the Big Three automakers that would use up to $25 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the $700 billion measure that passed in October to help bail out financial institutions.

Democrats would like to see a vote Wednesday, but some concede they probably don't have the support.

President Bush and GOP leaders in Congress say they'd be willing to lift some restrictions on an already-approved program to dole out $25 billion in loans meant to help U.S. automakers design more fuel-efficient vehicles.

"We're surprised that Senate Democrats would propose a bailout that fails to require automakers to make the hard decisions needed to restructure and become viable," White House Secretary Dana Perino said.

"It would add another $25 billion to the $25 billion already allocated for the auto industry, raiding the TARP of funds needed to stabilize our financial system and encourage new lending to help our economy grow.

"Congress should instead accelerate the existing $25 billion already appropriated for the auto industry by amending the Energy Department's loan program -- but only for those firms that make the difficult choices and do the restructuring necessary to become viable without additional taxpayer subsidies," Perino said.

Don't Miss

• Treasury doles out $33.6 billion to 21 banks
• Dems plan bailout vote despite opposition
• CNNMoney.com: What's at stake in bailout debate
• Potential grows for lame-duck session of Congress

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the Senate floor Monday, urged action on the plan to provide TARP money to automakers.

"If we move forward, we can protect American jobs, help American families and prevent our economy from falling further into a recession," he said.

Reid said in the event his bill fails, there would be an alternative piece of legislation that focuses solely on unemployment insurance.

A Senate Democratic aide said it "requires a long-term financial plan from any loan recipient, and includes robust language to provide for oversight and taxpayer protections and to limit executive compensation."

Two House Democratic aides confirm that House Democratic leaders and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts, were scheduled to meet with Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday afternoon.

The meeting -- to take place in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office -- was to include an update on TARP and discussion about using those funds to help the Big Three.

"One out of 10 jobs in this country are auto-related. Twenty percent of retail sales are auto-related or automobiles, so this is a national problem," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Watch what some say are the costs of letting the Big Three fail »

Levin is drafting legislation to throw a lifeline to Detroit, Michigan, home of the Big Three companies. The lifeline could include an additional $25 billion in loans carved out of the TARP.

The automakers have come on hard times of late. Ford announced this month that it lost $3 billion last quarter. General Motors is trading at about $3 a share, the lowest figure at which its stock has traded in more than 60 years. Chrysler has announced numerous plant closings and thousands of job cuts as its sales have plummeted over the last year.

The Center for Automotive Research, a think tank in Ann Arbor, Michigan, that is pushing for a bailout, estimates about 2.5 million job cuts if just half of the Big Three's manufacturing capacity shuts down.

About 240,000 of those job losses would be at the automakers; 800,000 would be at various suppliers and dealerships; and another 1.4 million job losses would come from businesses that rely on automaker spending, the think tank estimates.

A letter is being circulated by Levin and Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, to all senators for their signatures in support of the auto industry bailout. iReport.com: No choice but to bail out automakers?

The letter -- written to Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell -- says the Big Three "face rapidly evaporating operational liquidity" and "soon may not be able to continue to operate."

But some think the TARP money is for the financial system only.

"There's a line of companies, of industries waiting at Treasury just to see if they can get their hands on that $700 billion," Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said on CNN's "Late Edition" on Sunday. "That is for the financial system. It's to stabilize the financial system. That should not be used."

Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pennsylvania, said last week he can't condone using TARP funds for the auto industry when the money has yet to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, one of the most vocal critics of the proposed lifeline, suggested Sunday that bailing out the Big Three would be a waste of taxpayer dollars because it would reward the companies for mismanagement.

Shelby, the ranking member on the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, further said in his remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" that the government should allow the companies to file bankruptcy. See how foreign car companies have flocked to the U.S. »

"They would be, in a lot of people's judgment, a lot better off to go through Chapter 11, where they could reorganize, get rid of the management, get rid of the boards -- the people who've brought them where they are today," Shelby said. Watch CNN's Jack Cafferty explore whether the auto giant is worth saving »

Democrats say the automakers need the existing $25 billion in loans and an additional bridge loan just to survive through the year. However, many Democratic leaders say they realize the folly of bailing out Detroit without specifying Congress' expectations of the industry.

President-elect Barack Obama told CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday that Detroit needed help, but he opposes writing a "blank check." iReport.com: Reader believes auto bailout must come with "binding conditions"

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, who heads the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, said last week, "Clearly we shouldn't be writing checks without some clear conditionality of what's going to happen with that industry -- if they're going to change and get back on their feet again."

Democratic leaders would need 60 votes in the Senate to avoid a GOP filibuster, and as of last week, Dodd was certain they didn't have the numbers.

Gaining those numbers became more problematic Sunday, when Obama officially relinquished his Senate seat. Vice President-elect Joe Biden, a Delaware Democrat, is also expected to be absent from this week's wrangling.

The Senate Banking Committee will hold a hearing on the issue Tuesday and the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday.

Despite the proposal's infinitesimal chance of succeeding, Democratic leadership aides said proponents will push for a vote this week. The pessimistic Dodd, however, has said his party should consider waiting for Obama to take office.

With Obama in office, the Treasury can act without legislation. Also, with all run-off elections decided, party leaders will know the exact makeup of the 111th Congress, though Democrats are not likely to garner a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

The story

I want you to hear something President-elect Barack Obama said just about a year ago:

"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names -- a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.

The Times reports that some of those people were lobbying as recently as this year. Watch Campbell Brown's commentary

Now, the Obama team is quick to point out that their rules and restrictions on lobbying ties are far stricter than any previous administration

Editor's note: Campbell Brown anchors CNN's "Campbell Brown: No Bias, No Bull" at 8 p.m. ET Mondays through Fridays. She delivered this commentary during the "Cutting through the Bull" segment of Monday night's broadcast.

CNN's Campbell Brown it's true that lobbyists often are well informed on how Washington works.

(CNN) -- I want you to hear something President-elect Barack Obama said just about a year ago:

"I am running to tell the lobbyists in Washington that their days of setting the agenda are over. They have not funded my campaign. They won't work in my White House."

Just this weekend The New York times published a list of names -- a rather long list of names of people -- who are working on Obama's transition team or who have accepted jobs in his White House who are either former lobbyists or who have close ties to lobbyists.

The Times reports that some of those people were lobbying as recently as this year.

Now, the Obama team is quick to point out that their rules and restrictions on lobbying ties are far stricter than any previous administration.

And the Obama folks concede that eliminating anyone in Washington who had ever lobbied Congress or who has a family member who lobbied Congress would be foolish.

And it's true, you could argue the reality of Washington and our government is that lobbyists are often the most informed people on a given issue.

But we certainly never heard Obama articulate it quite that way when he was candidate Obama. What he said then was:

"That's what happens when lobbyists set the agenda and that's why they won't drown out your voices anymore when I am president of the United States of America."

And that is a promise that he may already be struggling to keep.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Campbell Brown.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senate Democrats appear willing to let Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, keep his powerful Homeland Security Committee chairmanship, even though he campaigned vigorously for Sen. John McCain's White House bid, two sources told CNN Monday.

Sen. Joe Lieberman's speech to the Republican National Convention angered some Democrats.

But the veteran lawmaker will, according to the sources, lose a less prominent chairmanship of a subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

"He's not happy about it, but he accepts it," one of the sources said.

Several lawmakers involved in the discussions over Lieberman's fate credited President-elect Barack Obama's desire to keep Lieberman in the Democratic caucus and let bygones be bygones as being a key reason Democratic leaders have agreed to support allowing Lieberman to keep his committee chair.

Democrats will meet behind closed doors in the Old Senate Chamber in the Capitol Tuesday morning. The Lieberman matter will be the first item on the agenda and a vote will be cast by secret ballot.

Lieberman and several other senators are expected to make presentations about Lieberman's behavior during the campaign. Several senators who are angry with Lieberman told CNN they would question Lieberman in detail about what he said and why when he was campaigning for Republican nominee McCain.

It is possible additional measures could be taken against Lieberman, or that alternatives could be offered, the sources said. But the question about his Homeland Security Committee has been the most pressing issue

After the meeting, the Connecticut senator did not discuss what he and Reid talked about, but said, "The election is over, and I completely agree with President-elect Obama that we must now unite to get our economy going again and to keep the American people safe.

"That is exactly what I intend to do with my colleagues here in the Senate in support of our new president," he said. "And those are the standards I will use in considering the options that I have before me."

Reid said after the meeting that no decisions had been made during their meeting.

"While I understand that Sen. Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our caucus," said Reid.

Reid was especially irked by Lieberman's prime-time speech at the Republican National Convention this summer.

During the speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, Lieberman said, "Sen. Barack Obama is a gifted and eloquent young man who I think can do great things for our country in the years ahead, but, my friends, eloquence is no substitute for a record, not in these tough times for America."

After the speech, Obama adviser Robert Gibbs said that "Joe Lieberman ought to be ashamed of himself for some of the things he said tonight, not as a Democrat but as an American."

Reid has not been shy in the past about expressing his frustration with Lieberman, who eight years ago was the Democrats' nominee for vice president.

But Reid also repeatedly has said he values Lieberman's membership in the caucus because on most issues, Lieberman votes with Democrats

By Alexander Mooney
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton's international business dealings, global foundation and penchant for going off script could present a significant obstacle to Hillary Clinton becoming secretary of state, observers say.

Bill Clinton's extensive global ties could cause conflict if Hillary Clinton is appointed as secretary of state.

On the one hand, his established relationships with world leaders could instantly make the New York senator a welcome face in embassies around the world.

On the other, his complicated global business interests could present future conflicts of interest that result in unneeded headaches for the incoming commander-in-chief.

"These are issues that I'm sure are being discussed, and they will have to be worked out, and it's legitimate to ask these questions," said James Carville, a former aide to the Clintons and CNN contributor. Watch: Does Clinton

Two officials with President-elect Barack Obama's transition team confirm to CNN that it is investigating Bill Clinton's finances and post-presidential dealings. As part of the early vetting process, the team is looking for any negative information that could throw the prospect of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state into jeopardy.

A particular issue could be the donor list of Bill Clinton's global foundation, which might show connections to international figures who push policies that might conflict with those of the new Obama administration.

Obama last week asked Clinton if she would consider being his secretary of state, multiple sources told CNN. Clinton's response is expected this week.

Since exiting the Oval Office eight years ago, Clinton has reportedly raised more than $500 million for the foundation, a significant portion of which financed the construction of his presidential library. The foundation has also doled out millions for AIDS relief in Africa and other charitable causes around the world.

Amid repeated criticism from Sen. Clinton's primary opponents, Bill Clinton would not reveal the extent of the foundation's donor list earlier this year. But The New York Times has reported the list includes some foreign governments, including members of the Saudi royal family, the king of Morocco, a fund connected to the United Arab Emirates, and the governments of Kuwait and Qatar.

The former president has also reportedly solicited funds from international business figures connected to human rights abuses that his wife has outwardly criticized, including the governments of Kazakhstan and China.

During the New York senator's White House bid, critics repeatedly said that foreign governments and business executives could try to exert influence through donations to the foundation, prompting a pledge from the former president to publicly disclose all future donors.

Observers say the same criticism is likely to be raised should Hillary Clinton become secretary of state, especially if countries she is dealing with on the diplomatic stage have at the same time donated heavily to her husband.

The matter could be complicated even further if it remains unclear exactly which foreign governments are supporting Clinton's foundation and to what extent. On Monday, Politico reported that Obama's team is seeking more information about the former president's finances and is growing frustrated over the Clinton camp's response.

The Obama officials disputed the Politico report, but confirmed the transition team is seeking unspecified records from the former president to get a better handle on issues related to his foundation work and presidential library to try to deal with potential conflicts of interest.

Also at issue is the former president's role in general should his wife become secretary of state. Since leaving office, Bill Clinton has become a globetrotter of sorts, amassing millions in speaking fees as he gives talks before corporations around the world.

The Obama administration would probably seek to curtail that practice amid worries that the former president's words could contradict those of his wife at times and make unclear to some just who is speaking for the United States government. But it's unlikely that Clinton, who has always enjoyed the spotlight, would be willing to retreat from the public eye.

"She really has to sit down with her husband and work through where does this leave him," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN who worked in Clinton's White House. "After all, he's very deeply involved in the Clinton Global Initiative, doing good around the world. Could he continue to do that? Would he have to shut it down? Could he take money from people? There are lots of secondary questions."

Even more problematic could be the former president's history of going decidedly off message during speeches and his willingness to blatantly speak his mind seemingly without regard for the political fallout.

During her presidential bid last year, Sen. Clinton at times publicly criticized her husband for things he said on the campaign trail, and in one particularly embarrassing moment for the campaign, she told him to "knock it off."

But ultimately, the duty of keeping the former president in check may fall to the New York senator should she assume the top diplomatic post.

"If he doesn't stay on script, she's going to have to discipline him, just like she did in the campaign," said Gloria Borger, a CNN senior political analyst.

"It won't be up to Obama, it will be up to her."

Editor's Note: Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School. He is the co-editor of "Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s" and is completing a book on the history of national-security politics since World War II, to be published by Basic Books.

Historian Julian Zelizer says McCain should play vital role helping Obama enact key legislation.

PRINCETON, New Jersey (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain will meet for the first time on Monday since the election.

The meeting comes at an important time for McCain, who must decide what to do with remainder of his career in the Senate.

With his reputation severely harmed as a result of the campaign -- some Republicans furious at him for having lost the White House with a poor campaign and some Democrats furious with the negative tone that his campaign embraced in September and October -- he will have an interest in building a positive legacy.

McCain's best bet would be to form a bipartisan alliance with Obama on as many issues as possible -- perhaps with an economic stimulus bill, immigration reform, exiting Iraq and new regulations on Wall Street.

Doing so would help the president secure bipartisan support while McCain would go down in the record books for helping the nation, through legislation, in a time of grave crisis.

Bipartisan alliances usually happen when two people of opposing parties need each other for their own self-interest. This is the situation right now. Obama could use McCain to make sure his legislation survives the Senate. McCain needs Obama to help restore his legacy in political history.

There are not many models for McCain to turn to for inspiration, but he might think a bit about the Republican Wendell Willkie, defeated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1940.

Though not a legislator, Willkie became a very important ally to FDR after 1940, fighting against isolationism in the GOP and building support for the president's foreign policy. He traveled around the globe to meet with foreign leaders and wrote a book that promoted the internationalist outlook.

In fact, there is a long tradition of this kind of cooperation in congressional history. We have seen how this can work on foreign policy.

Michigan Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, who coined the phrase "politics stops at the water's edge," worked closely with President Harry Truman in 1947 and 1948 to find support in the Republican Congress for the creation of the modern national security state.

In 1953 and 1954, Senate Minority Leader Lyndon Johnson of Texas worked with President Dwight Eisenhower on a series of foreign policy issues. The White House was under attack from conservative Republicans led by John Bricker, who sought to curtail executive power on foreign affairs.

Bricker proposed an amendment to limit the ability of the president to enter into international agreements without Senate consent. Many southern Democrats supported the amendment fearing that the U.N. Charter opened the opportunity for the president to expand civil rights.

Eisenhower thought the amendment would be extremely dangerous and handcuff the president when dealing with foreign policy. He turned to Lyndon Johnson, who brought along Senate Democrats to stifle the measure. Johnson hoped to make Senate Republicans seem like the obstructionists in Washington and to boost his own reputation as a leader.

Johnson's adviser, George Reedy, explained that the contrast of Republican intra-party warfare and "a dignified but pointed record on all issues" from the Democratic Party would be "potent campaign ammunition." The strategy worked. Johnson was selected as majority leader in 1954.

These alliances have also furthered the social agenda. As president in 1964, Johnson turned to Illinois Sen. Everett Dirksen to help him push the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Senate. In the 1960s, Southern Democrats, who chaired the major committees and were masters at using the Senate filibuster to block bills they opposed, were the chief opponents of civil rights.

So when Johnson pushed for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 he needed Republican support to break a filibuster. He found a partner with Dirksen, one of several Republicans who saw how the GOP could benefit from embracing civil rights as Democrats were divided.

"We dare not temporize with the issue which is before us," Dirken said in a speech before the Senate, "it is essentially moral in character. It must be resolved. It will not go away. Its time has come."

Dirksen's role in the passage of civil rights defined his role in the history books.

Bipartisan, inter-branch alliances have also bolstered the reputation of legislators who tackled unpopular fiscal issues such as deficit reduction. The alliances became less common after the 1970s as a result of polarization in Washington that diminished the role of centrists and the opportunity for compromise.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush worked closely with House Ways and Means Chairman Dan Rostenkowski to design a deal that cut spending and increased taxes to reduce the deficit. Republicans were furious with the president for breaking his pledge in 1988 not to raise taxes.

Rostenkowski's career would go down in ignominious fashion as a result of a scandal, but his work on deficit reduction remains a testament to his ability to find bipartisan opportunities in rough, bipartisan waters.

"What's at stake here?" he asked his colleagues about the deal, "Nothing less, in my opinion, than American self-respect."

There are many other examples in American history where legislators enhanced their reputations in the history books by working with presidents, including presidents from other parties. This is McCain's best hope for strengthening his political legacy.

He will likely never be the kind of legislator who becomes a champion of a political ideology -- like Ted Kennedy and liberalism, or Newt Gingrich and conservatism -- nor is he likely to be the kind of forceful party leader like Tom DeLay or Trent Lott.

But what McCain can do, as he has done in the past with campaign finance and ethics reform, is to team up with the opposition and get legislation through Congress. According to Congressional Quarterly, former Bush and McCain adviser Mark McKinnon has predicted that "Senator McCain's interest after this election will be not any political ambition but a genuine desire to make his last chapter in Washington all about bipartisan healing."

Now he has a chance to enhance his mark in the history books, this time with the person who defeated him, and then his legacy would not be the failed political campaign of 2008.

Once competitors, President-elect Barack Obama and Arizona Sen. John McCain will meet today in Chicago. Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

The scheduled meeting today between President-elect Barack Obama and his vanquished Republican rival John McCain is more about symbolism than substance, but it raises an intriguing question about what the future holds for the Arizona senator.

Prior to running for president this year, McCain was generally regarded as one of a handful of senators -- of either partisan stripe -- willing to work across the aisle to broker compromises on major issues of the day. Campaign finance reform is the most lasting example, but others -- including his leadership role in the "Gang of 14" -- also cropped up regularly over McCain's past decade of work in the Senate. (Worth noting: At the start of their meeting today, McCain was asked whether he would help Obama with his Administration and responded: "Obviously.")

During his bid for the presidency, however, McCain became much more willing to echo party orthodoxy -- an absolute necessity for him if he wanted to win over the skeptical conservative voters who make up the party's base and carry an outsized role in picking the Republican presidential nominee.

With the presidential race behind him, it remains to be seen how -- and how long -- McCain will serve in the Senate.

He seems to have three options: return to his deal-brokering ways with the added stature of having been his party's most recent presidential nominee, serve the role of the loyal opposition to the Obama presidency or simply play out the string for the next two years and retire in 2010.

Which path will McCain take? Those who know him best believe the first road laid out above is the most likely one for McCain to head down.

Fred Davis, the ad man who served as McCain's lead media consultant during the presidential bid, said the Arizona Senator would win up as a "dealmaker" and "peacemaker" during the Obama presidency.

"I never felt he was comfortable in the customary presidential candidate roll of attacker, and think he'll find personal honor bringing both sides together to accomplish great things," Davis added.

It is clear from a re-examination of the campaign that McCain was often visibly uncomfortable -- in a way that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin never was -- in the role of partisan attack dog; he barred his campaign from ever discussing Obama's ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright publicly and half-heartedly (and not very effectively) tried to raise the issue of Bill Ayers during the race.

That's not to say McCain didn't hit Obama and hit him hard. He did. But, it as long been clear to those who closely watch the Arizona Senator that the brass knuckles element of politics doesn't come all that naturally to him.

Witness his apology following the 2000 campaign for not speaking out against flying the confederate flag over the South Carolina statehouse.

At that time, McCain called his failure to speak out a "sacrifice of principle for personal ambition" -- a statement that provides a window into the Arizona Senator's political soul.

In his mind's eye, McCain sees himself as a cut above most politicians; he believes that he bases his actions on honor and merit, not political expediency. Therefore, anything that McCain sees as rankly political or overly partisan tends to rankle him personally as it conflicts with his own vision of his political career.

Take McCain's recent appearance on behalf of Georgia Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R). While McCain was heavily criticized from the left for stumping on behalf of a man whose ads he had condemned just six years ago, it's important to note that nowhere in his speech for Chambliss did McCain mention Obama negatively or take a partisan jab at him, a punch that would have undoubtedly been well-received by the red meat partisan audience.

In many ways, McCain is in uncharted territory. The last time a Republican senator ran and lost a presidential bid was back in 1996 when Bob Dole (R-Kans.) was defeated by President Bill Clinton. Dole, however, had already resigned his Senate seat to focus full time on the campaign, so there was no question that any impact he would have on politics would come from outside the Senate.

The more apt example for McCain may well be that of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry who returned to the Senate after his defeat at the hands of President George W. Bush in 2004. While the comparison is imperfect (Kerry was weighing another presidential bid in four years time while it is almost certain McCain is not), it does speak to the struggles -- and opportunities -- that will present themselves to McCain over the next few years. (McCain and Kerry have a long and complicated relationship that makes this comparison even more intriguing.)

Kerry stumbled occasionally in his first few years but between 2006 and 2008 emerged as an ardent and effective voice on foreign policy matters -- particularly Iraq -- for the Democratic party. That advocacy has made him a leading candidate for the Secretary of State posting in an Obama Administration.

How McCain handles his defeat could have major implications for the success or failure of Obama's call for a postpartisan political climate. McCain has the influence and gravitas in the Senate to help push or torpedo Obama's agenda items. Today's meeting will provide an early indication of which direction the Arizona Republican is headed over the next few years.

In wooing federal employee votes on the eve of the election, Barack Obama wrote a series of letters to workers that offer detailed descriptions of how he intends to add muscle to specific government programs, give new power to bureaucrats and roll back some Bush administration policies.

The letters, sent to employees at nine agencies, describe Obama's intention to scale back on contracts to private firms doing government work, to remove censorship from scientific research, and to champion tougher industry regulation to protect workers and the environment. He made it clear that the Department of Housing and Urban Development would have an enhanced role in restoring public confidence in the housing market, shaken because of the ongoing mortgage crisis.

Using more specifics than he did on the campaign trail, Obama said he would add staff to erase the backlog of Social Security disability claims. He said he would help Transportation Security Administration officers obtain the same bargaining rights and workplace protections as other federal workers. He even expressed a desire to protect the Environmental Protection Agency's library system, which the Bush administration tried to eliminate.

"I asked him to put it in writing, something I could use with my members, and he didn't flinch," said John Gage, president of the 600,000-member American Federation of Government Employees, who requested that Obama write the letters, which were distributed through the union. "The fact that he's willing to put his name to it is a good sign."

The letters, all but one written Oct. 20, reveal a candidate adeptly tailoring his message to a federal audience and tapping into many workers' dismay at funding cuts and workforce downsizing in the Bush years. Many of Obama's promises would require additional funding, something he acknowledged would be difficult to achieve under the current economic conditions.

Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said the letters were intended to communicate to federal workers his position on their agencies.

In a letter to Labor Department employees, Obama wrote: "I believe that it's time we stopped talking about family values and start pursuing policies that truly value families, such as paid family leave, flexible work schedules, and telework, with the federal government leading by example."

Obama wrote to employees in the departments of Labor, Defense, Housing and Urban Development, and Veterans Affairs, along with the TSA, the EPA and the Social Security Administration. Defense was the only area in which he did not make promises requiring additional spending, the letters show.

Some worry that Obama may have overpromised, with program changes and worker benefits that would be impossible to achieve. "That strikes me as smart politics," said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. "We'll soon find out if he can deliver when he has to deliver his first budget."

Obama repeatedly echoed in his correspondence the longstanding lament of federal workers -- that the Bush administration starved their agencies of staff and money to the point where they could not do their jobs.

In his letter to Labor Department employees, Obama said Bush appointees had thwarted the agency's mission of keeping workers safe, especially in mines. "Our mine safety program will have the staffing . . . needed to get the job done," he wrote.

Obama lamented to EPA staffers that Americans' health and the planet have been "jeopardized outright" because of "inadequate funding" and "the failed leadership of the past eight years, despite the strong and ongoing commitment of the career individuals throughout this agency."

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said Sunday he would "welcome" and "support" a meeting between President-elect Barack Obama and North Korean leader Kim Jong Il if Obama were to take such a step after taking office.

South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak tells CNN he would support a meeting between Obama and North Korea.

In an interview with CNN's Alina Cho at the Group of 20 financial summit in Washington, Lee said that when he spoke with Obama after the U.S. presidential election, Obama promised to consult with South Korea before taking any major action on North Korea.

In response to a question at a presidential debate, Obama said he would meet without preconditions during the first year of his administration with leaders of several nations whose governments have been at odds with the United States, including North Korea.

"Barack Obama and Joe Biden will not take any options off the table, but they will emphasize first and foremost the power of American diplomacy and make clear the substantial benefits to Iran and North Korea of abandoning their dangerous nuclear programs while simultaneously conveying the enormous costs to them should they fail to do so," according to the Web site.

Lee told CNN he has high expectations for Obama, calling him "the right leader at the right time." He said any damage done in recent years to U.S. global leadership may be because the country relied too heavily on "hard power," and that he believes Obama will be effective in utilizing "soft power."

Transition Trail Mix (Sunday Edition)

It may be Sunday morning but with only 65 days left before Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president, his transition team continues to move with all "deliberate haste" to fill key senior jobs in the White House.

To wit:

• The transition announced this morning that Pete Rouse, Obama's Senate chief of staff, will become a senior adviser to the president. Rouse is a longtime senior to former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) for whom he worked on Capitol Hill for nearly two decades.

• Jim Messina, another Hill veteran, will serve as a deputy chief of staff in the Obama Administration. Prior to joining the Obama campaign in mid-June, Messina served as chief of staff to Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.); Messina also has run a number of campaigns including Baucus reelection bids in 1996 and 2002. Messina is currently the director of personnel for the transition.

• Mona Sutphen was also named a deputy chief of staff this morning -- bringing a long and deep foreign policy r&eaccutte;sum&eaccutte; to the new administration. Sutphen was a foreign service officer during the 1990s and served on the White House Security Council from 1998 to 2000.

• Rumors swirled Saturday night that Greg Craig, a longtime Washington lawyer, has been chosen as White House counsel. Mike Allen of Politico had the news first; the Obama transition team was not commenting on or confirming the report as of late last night.