The State Department rolled out its fiscal 2013 budget request today, which contains several items that are sure to meet resistance when lawmakers roll up their sleeves and dig into the budget this spring and summer.

International programs don't have strong constituencies on Capitol Hill to begin with, and Congress has its own ideas for how to spend foreign aid.

The State Department knows all of this, of course, and has framed its fiscal 2013 budget request as a small portion of the federal budget that contributes directly to national security. State's $51.6 billion request, however, faces a GOP-led House that is searching hard for discretionary budget items to cut and a foreign-policy-minded Senate that wants to use aid to press foreign governments to act more in line with U.S. priorities.

"This is a moment of historic change around the world. They are also tight times for our government and for our people -- the two truths that have guided us from day one," Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides said Monday. "And so, as I'd like to remind you once again, with just 1 percent of the federal budget, the State Department and USAID will maintain our country's leadership in a changing world, what'll promote our values, jumpstart our economy, and above all keep America safe in 2013 and beyond."

Here are five of the items in the State Department's budget that will spark debates in Congress this year:

1)      The top line budget numbers. The State Department and USAID requested $51.6 billion for fiscal year 2013, but $8.2 billion is categorized as temporarily needed funding for Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan under what's called the Overseas Contingency Operations fund (OCO) account. The remaining $43.6 billion is the "core budget" request and represents a 10 percent increase over fiscal 2012 levels as enacted by Congress.

For fiscal 2012, lawmakers moved a lot of funding from the core budget to the OCO account in order to fit State Department funding inside the mandatory discretionary spending caps set forth in the Budget Control Act of 2011. Now, State is trying to move that funding back into its core budget so that it will have it whenever the need for emergency funding wanes.

In general, State prefers to use the OCO accounts when possible because Congress is more willing to fund programs that are needed in the current wars... and because the OCO account is off budget. ("Obviously, the benefit of the OCO account in general allows for all of you who report on this and for the Hill to look at the costs of our frontline states, to look at the costs of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan," said Nides.)

But outside experts see the OCO account, which has been used by State since last year and by the Pentagon since 9/11, as a slush fund. "I think OCO accounts are a scourge," said Gordon Adams, former national security director at the Office of Management and Budget during the Clinton administration. "Special extra accounts are a refuge for budget scoundrels. Funding for all three of those countries are going to be subject to debate and dispute."

2)      Middle East Funding Initiative. The administration is requesting $770 million for this new initiative, which is meant to support U.S. activities in countries affected by the "Arab Spring." This is the largest single new program in the State Department's budget request, but there's not a lot of detail in the request about how the money will actually be spent.

Nides said it's impossible to predict. "The Arab Spring has come. We need to make sure we have the tools and the flexibility in which to fund these initiatives," he said. "I cannot tell you today where that money will be spent, because we'll be, obviously, in consultation with the Hill."

Some $70 million of that total comes from existing programs, the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and USAID's Office of Middle East Partnerships (OMEP). The remaining $700 million is "new money," an administration official said. "We came to the Middle East changes without any resources dedicated to this in the budget," the official said, explaining that State has spent about $800 million since last year to respond to the protests in countries like Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, but had to cobble those funds together from other accounts.

"That will be controversial because there's no content. It's a contingency fund and Congress doesn't like to give State contingency funds," said Adams. "It's probably not a bad idea in theory but it is way too large for having no program."

3)      Egypt military funding. The State Department is again asking Congress for $1.3 billion in direct aid to the Egyptian military. The $1.3 billion in military aid that Congress appropriated for fiscal 2012, however, has not been sent yet and might be held up for a while because of the escalating crisis concerning pending charges against 19 American NGO workers in Cairo. By law, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has to certify the Egyptian military is moving towards a true democratic transition before that money can be released and many top lawmakers are urging her not to do so. There are even bills to halt the funding regardless of Clinton's determination. Additionally, the administration is requesting $250 million in direct assistance to the civilian government, which it believes to be more responsible for the NGO crackdown than the military.

Nevertheless, the administration is hoping that will all be worked out by next year. "Our goal is, is to provide them those funds," said Nides. "I mean, it's obviously clear to all of us that we have issues that we need to work through. And we're working very aggressively to do so. But this budget reflects our commitment and our desire to fully fund those initiatives."

4)      Pakistan civilian assistance. The U.S.-Pakistan relationship is in tatters, but the administration is still requesting more than $2 billion in aid to Pakistan. But in a shift from last year, the administration is requesting significantly less money for assistance to the Pakistani civilian government while increasing requested aid for the Pakistani military. That may seem odd considering that the Pakistani military and intelligence services have been widely accused of playing both sides in Afghanistan, and that Osama bin Laden was discovered hiding in a military garrison town for years.

Nevertheless, the administration is requesting only $1.1 billion for in Pakistani civilian assistance for 2013, even thought the Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill authorized up to $1.5 billion each year. Meanwhile, the administration requested $800 million under the Pakistani Counterinsurgency Contingency Fund (PCCF), a reimbursement program for the Pakistani military jointly run by State and DOD, and State is requesting $350 million in foreign military financing for Pakistan, up from $98 million in fiscal 2012.

An administration official said that becuase Congress only gave State about $1 billion last year under the Kerry-Lugar program, that's about how much they decided to ask for  in FY 2013. "It's still one of the largest recipients of assistance in our budget," the administration official said. "We have a lot of negotiation to do and we'll be making that argument that we can and we'll have to figure out with Congress what the final number will be."

5)      Palestinian Authority assistance. The administration requested $370 million for economic support funding for the West Bank and Gaza in fiscal 2013, down from the $397 million given to the PA in fiscal 2012 but still one of the largest U.S. assistance programs in the budget. Congress is extremely sour on PA assistance, however, because peace talks have broken down and because Fatah and Hamas are planning to form a unity government.

The reduction in West Bank funding is because equipment for the U.S. police training program there has been largely completed, an administration official said. State also cut the amount of direct cash transfers to the Palestinian Authority from $200 million to $150 million. "We think the economic situation is slightly better so we think we can do a little bit less," the official said.

What's more, the administration is also requesting $79 million for UNESCO in 2013, even though the U.S. government is legally barred from contributing to UNESCO because the organization admitted Palestine as a member.

"The Congress has prohibited us for funding UNESCO this year. And as you know, the president's also articulated -- and quite clearly -- that he would like a waiver to allow us to participate in UNESCO," said Nides. "We have put the money in the budget, realizing that we are not going to be able to spend the money unless we get the waiver. And we have made it clear to the Congress we'd like a waiver."

In what seems like a deliberate ploy to escape the cold autumn weather gripping Washington, President Barack Obama will leave for Cannes on Wednesday for the G-20 summit and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is off to Istanbul for an international meeting on Afghanistan.

Upon arriving in Cannes on Thursday morning, Obama will hold bilateral meetings with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.  He will then meet with the "L-20," an elected group of labor leaders from the G-20 countries. On Thursday afternoon, the formal G-20 schedule commences.

Obama will meet on Friday with the newly reelected Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, followed by a press conference, and then perhaps some more one-on-one time with Sarkozy. Other bilateral meetings could pop up, according to Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes.

"The G-20 agenda is critical to growing our economy here back at home, to strengthening the recovery, to increase exports and to create jobs," NSC Senior Director for International Economics Mike Froman told reporters on Monday morning. "In Cannes, we expect the eurozone to be the primary focus of discussion, but in addition, the leaders will focus on mechanisms that have been put in place to ensure strong, balanced and sustainable growth."

Froman said other topics at the G-20 summit will include financial regulatory reform and how to keep momentum going on G-20 priorities, such as security and infrastructure development, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies, fighting corruption, and strengthening the multilateral trading system.

"[T]here is growing agreement around the world that the focus at Cannes needs to be on growth," said Treasury Undersecretary Lael Brainard. "President Obama remains intensely focused on putting Americans back to work.  Recovery in the U.S. remains fragile and still too vulnerable to disruption beyond our shores."

Brainard called the new European plan to stave off financial collapse "significant" but declined to comment on whether or not the administration has confidence that Europe's the $1.4 trillion firewall the Obama administration is recommending will actually be implemented. The officials didn't comment directly on the idea of China bailing out Europe, but they didn't seem thrilled about the prospect, either.

So the concept that China and other emerging economies are part of this discussion, that they will be there, along with ourselves and other industrialized countries, speaking with the Europeans, talking about the elaboration and the implementation of their plan, and expressing unity and support of what the Europeans are doing, we think is very much appropriate," Froman said.

Brainard also implied -- but did not say outright -- that the United States was not supportive of the European idea of imposing a tax on all trades of stocks and bonds. She talked about the Obama administration's financial responsibility fee as the preferred approach.

"We think that the financial responsibility fee, which is on the liabilities of the largest financial institutions, is well-targeted to make those institutions that are bearing greater risk pay more. It is better targeted to prevent evasion. And the IMF went through a similar assessment exercise and came, frankly, to a pretty similar conclusion," she said.

Meanwhile, Clinton leaves Monday night for London to attend a conference on cyber security policy. On Wednesday, Clinton will participate in an international conference in Istanbul on the way forward in Afghanistan. The conference is part of the lead up to the Bonn conference on Afghanistan scheduled for Dec. 5.

"Istanbul is seen as an opportunity for Afghanistan's neighbors to reiterate their commitment to a stable, secure, economically viable Afghanistan and to supporting Afghan-led reconciliation, the transition to Afghan security leadership, and then a shared regional economic vision," a senior administration official told reporters on Monday. "It's a gathering of regional foreign ministers. The U.S. is actually there just as a supporter, which is critical."

The Bonn conference is expected to include 85 countries and 15 international organizations, and is being held to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the Bonn Agreement in December 2001, which was convened to establish an interim government for ruling Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion.

As for Wednesday's conference in Istanbul, the opening session will feature remarks from Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu, and Afghan Foreign Minister Zalmai Rassoul. Clinton will make remarks on Wednesday afternoon after lunch.

Pakistani Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar will also be at the conference, and Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari will be in town for a U.S.-Afghan-Pakistani trilateral meeting as well. The United States has been pressing the Pakistani government to cut ties with the Haqqani network, but there's no progress to report just yet.

"The secretary, I think, was quite clear that we all need to see visible signs of progress as a matter of some urgency in days and weeks, as she noted, as opposed to months and years," the senior administration official said.

As the nation careens toward a possible debt default, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Asian business leaders not to overreact to the U.S. political crisis, taking some implicit shots at China's economic policies as well.

"The political wrangling in Washington is intense right now. But these kinds of debates have been a constant in our political life throughout the history of our republic. And sometimes, they are messy," Clinton said in Hong Kong on Monday. "But this is how an open and democratic society ultimately comes together to reach the right solutions."

"Through more than a century of growth, the American economy has repeatedly shown its strength, its resilience, and its unrivaled capacity to adapt and reinvent itself," she said. "And it will keep doing so."

Clinton, who was speaking at an event organized by the Macau chambers of commerce and the Asia Society, said that economics is becoming a higher priority in U.S. foreign policy. She pledged to give a major speech on "America's strategic and economic choices" this fall, and argued that the United States' and East Asia's economies are inextricably linked.

"We are a resident power in Asia -- not only a diplomatic or military power, but a resident economic power. And we are here to stay," she said.

In remarks that appeared at times to be directed at China, Clinton then went on to call for fairness and transparency in economic systems.

"Openness, freedom and transparency contribute to the fourth principle we must ensure: fairness. Fairness sustains faith in the system," she said. "That faith is difficult to sustain when companies are forced to trade away their intellectual property just to enter or expand in a foreign market, or when vital supply chains are blocked. These kinds of actions undermine fair competition, which turns many off from competing at all."

The Chinese government, the largest holder of U.S. debt, has been largely silent about the U.S. debt ceiling crisis. But experts warn that the failure of the U.S. government to resolve the issue expeditiously could further undermine confidence in the already weak U.S. dollar and harm the overall image of the U.S. as a competent world leader.

"We've got repeated statements from Chinese officials of sort of, you know, we hate you guys, but we don't have any choice. And we're still buying your debt, because we don't see anywhere else to buy it," said Sebastian Mallaby, senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. "But, when the reserve currency is unloved by the accumulators of those reserves -- namely, the central banks of countries like China -- you're on thin ice. They're buying the dollar assets, but they don't like it. And so they're looking actively over a sort of long-term horizon to try to find an alternative."

The Heritage Foundation's Derek Scissors wrote today that China has already slowed its purchase of U.S. Treasury bonds, but for the time being, China has few other options but to continue buying U.S. dollars.

"There's the idea that China can just stop buying foreign currency assets. False. The PRC's own balance of payments rules mean they have to keep buying, and they know they have to."

The Senate is preparing to use the confirmation hearing of current Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, who President Barack Obama is set to nominate as the next U.S. ambassador to China, to criticize what many lawmakers see as the administration's flawed policy toward Beijing.

Locke, a Chinese-American whose parents emmigrated from Hong Kong, has extensive experience dealing with China. He traveled to China several times during his eight years as governor of Washington state and ran a law practice at the Seattle-based firm of Davis Wright Tremaine that focused heavily on China-related issues. Locke also has deep connections to the Chinese leadership, which could come in handy if he's confirmed by the Senate.

Locke was confirmed unanimously as Commerce Secretary by voice vote in 2009, but his confirmation this time around is far from assured. For senators on both sides of the aisle, their concerns are not about Locke, personally. They see the upcoming confirmation process as an opportunity to press the administration on several aspects of the U.S.-China relationship, including China's currency manipulation, abuse of intellectual property rights, support for brutal regimes in places like Sudan and Zimbabwe and failure to enforce international sanctions against Iran and North Korea.

"We're going to have some issues regarding China policy," Sen. James Risch (R-ID), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told The Cable in an interview Tuesday. Asked what issues he would want to bring up in Locke's committee hearing, Risch responded, "Where do you start? There's just a whole list of issues."

For most lawmakers, China's insistence on keepings its currency undervalued,  which exacerbates the U.S.-China trade deficit and encourages companies to move jobs overseas, is an issue that Locke had direct influence over as head of the Commerce Department. Even senior Democrats who do not sit on the Foreign Relations Committee said they plan to press Locke on trade and economic issues through written questions and when debating his nomination on the Senate floor.

"I want to ask him ‘What have you done and why hasn't more been done,'" Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI) told The Cable.  "I have questions about the manipulation of currency by China, questions about the fact that they close their markets to our goods but still get access to our markets, what I would consider unfair trade practices by China. There would be questions about intellectual property, about counterfeits. I want to know what he plans to do about it."

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) have taken the lead on the currency issue in the Senate. Graham said that he was unhappy with the administration's progress on the issue but wouldn't necessarily hold up Locke's nomination because of it.

"If I'm going to have to find somebody who makes me happy on the China currency issue, we're probably never going to have an ambassador," Graham told The Cable.

Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), told The Cable that he liked Locke personally, but would use the confirmation process to press the administration to prove it is willing to enforce sanctions under the Iran sanctions laws, which he played a key role in drafting, against Chinese companies who are still doing business with Iran.

Other senators who have pressed the administration to enforce Iran sanctions against Chinese companies include Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), John McCain (R-AZ), and Joe Lieberman (I-CT). One senior GOP aide said that the issue could become a problem for Locke's confirmation.

"The State Department is going to find it very difficult getting Secretary Locke confirmed to be our ambassador to China if it cannot articulate the standards by which China's violations of Iran sanctions laws will be sanctioned," the aide said.

Larry Wortzel, commissioner on the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, said that Locke will be pressed on human rights issues, religious freedom, and security matters, in addition to currency and trade.

"Confirmation hearings in the Senate will be used as a platform to state criticism of current policy, as they always are," said Wortzel. "But I think there is a strong probability Locke will be confirmed."

Where we ask 10 questions that help us to understand one of the personalities making foreign policy in the Obama administration. This week's subject: Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Robert Hormats:

1. Which American president do you look to as the model for your approach to foreign policy? Jefferson, Wilson, FDR, LBJ, JFK, George W. Bush, someone else?

FDR and Harry S. Truman. Both understood the importance of strong alliances -- including with some countries with which we did not agree on many issues -- to accomplish important objectives. They saw great alliances as essential not simply to win World War II but also to construct a new global economic order after it -- to promote reconstruction and avoid a repetition of the mutually destructive economic behavior that helped cause the war in the first place.

Their leadership was critical to the establishment of institutions that underpinned post-war prosperity and security. The economic institutions they created -- designed to build a stable and open global economic system -- were essential to postwar recovery and ultimately to the West's success in the Cold War. They also have served as the framework for the integration of growing numbers of emerging and developing economies into the global trade and financial system, and the cross-border networking of individuals and businesses. Such developments, in turn, have helped nations unlock the unlimited creativity, energy and inventiveness of their citizens and lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and into an increasingly vibrant global middle class. Together these institutions and this system have helped produce the dynamic world economy we enjoy today, one that is critical to continued American prosperity. They also form a strong basis for managing a growing set of fresh challenges resulting from new forces and pressures in the global economy.

2. How do you view U.S. leadership in the world in the 21st century? Is America a hegemon in decline or going strong? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

America is still the "indispensable nation," but there is virtually no major economic issue that can be successfully resolved without a large number of other nations -- traditional allies and powerful emerging economies alike. The global financial crisis was ample evidence -- if any were needed -- of how closely nations are tied together on financial and economic issues. But because the world now is so intensely interconnected, the same also is true when it comes to the environment, trade flows, energy, the volatility of food prices and the availability of food itself, shortages of water, the spread of infectious diseases and vulnerability to terrorism. Creative diplomacy and strong cross-border partnerships are indispensable if American interests are to be served in these areas.

3. What's the number one narrative about the Obama administration's foreign policy so far that you feel has been mischaracterized by the media?

I am reluctant to use the word "mischaracterized," but I would like to see a more thorough media job of documenting the work of the administration in building a more stable international economic system, alongside the political challenges that it is meeting.

4. Which Obama administration foreign-policy official should we watch more closely?

It's a great team that the president and secretary have assembled. Watch all of them!

5. What do you see as the top three challenges for U.S. foreign policy over the next three decades?

In the area of international economic policy, I see many important challenges. Let me just cite one that cuts across many policy issues:  Successfully integrating the large emerging economies into the rules-based, market-oriented global economic system.

As these nations become more powerful economically, they must also assume greater responsibility for the stability and proper functioning of the international economic system. They will also have an important role as America's partners in strengthening existing global economic institutions, creating new ones, and establishing new methods of cooperation to address the challenges of the 21st  century. We all have a role in ensuring that zero-sum competition for markets, energy, food, or capital does not emerge. Instead, the U.S. seeks, in partnership with emerging economies and traditional allies, greater access for all people to the benefits of global trade, investment and information networks, and cooperation to address any disruptions in the global economy or threats to our nation's, or international, economic growth and stability. Shaping the global system of the 21st Century to meet American interests will require U.S. leadership, vision, and creative partnerships with these economies.

6. Why did you decide to go to work for the Obama administration? What do you hope to accomplish?

I strongly support the policy objectives of President Obama and Secretary Clinton. I also believe that their leadership is crucial to successfully addressing the critical issues our country and the world face in this era. And I hope to play a supportive role in helping them address the challenges before our nation.

If the U.S. successfully addresses these challenges, we will strengthen prospects for American and global prosperity for decades to come. Just as Secretary of State Dean Acheson famously wrote that he was "present at the creation" of the American-inspired and led world order established after World War II (of course he was more than present; he was instrumental in the entire process), those of us in government today, in the early 21st century, can be said to be present at the "re-creation" and have an opportunity to help our nation shape it. Of course the character and needs of the world economy today differ greatly from those in the late 1940s and early 1950s -- and therefore require new ways of thinking and cooperating. The turbo-charged globalization of commerce, finance, and information flows, and the entrance of billions of new producers and consumers into the global economy -- particularly with the reintegration of large economies such as China and India -- raise new challenges. But they also require of us today the same high level of creativity and vision displayed by Secretary Acheson and his colleagues over half a century ago.

One area I will especially focus on in this country is working closely with American labor, business, farmers, entrepreneurs and investors to sharpen our nation's international competitive capabilities, and to support their interests abroad. A key task will be to ensure that changes in the global economy can be harnessed to enhance international opportunities for a widening range of Americans in communities throughout our country -- and to help them take full advantage of expanding markets around the world.

I am enthusiastic about working with my colleagues in the State Department, those in other agencies, and members and staff on the Hill to tackle these issues.

7. Who was your mentor in the early stages of your career and how did they help you?

I have had a wonderful mentor in Fred Bergsten, who now runs the Peterson Institute for International Economics. Fred gave me my first job in government as his assistant on the National Security Council staff when I was fresh out of graduate school at the Fletcher School at Tufts University; he has been a valued mentor and close friend ever since. Fred has a passion for international economic policy that I share and a remarkable sense of vision about the kinds of issues that will be critical to the U.S. and global economy in future years.

8. Who is the foreign leader or figure you most admire and why?

Nelson Mandela. Vision, humanity, creativity and commitment.

9. What is your favorite country to visit for pleasure and what should we do when we go there?

Israel, because of Jerusalem; there is no city that contains as much history per square foot as Jerusalem. Egypt because of the remarkable monuments near Cairo and in Upper Egypt. By studying these civilizations and their rich history we learn a lot about ourselves and our religious and cultural traditions.

10. If you had the chance to meet with any leading figure from history, who would it be and what would you say to them?

Galileo, Copernicus, and Darwin -- for much the same reason. The methods of scientific inquiry we practice today owe much to them. They embody human creativity. I would be interested in knowing how they would advise us today on the question of how to adopt creative, visionary and (if need be) daring solutions to the problems we face. Often our societies find it difficult to face up to the need to dramatically change our ways of thinking and acting in the face of new challenges or to overcome past inertia; as the result tough issues often are not addressed with sufficient boldness. These men were quintessentially bold thinkers. We could learn much from them today.