Funding the Nukes

In the Los Angeles Times today, Stepehen Schwartz and Deepti Choubey published an op-ed that discusses the nuclear budget as part of the incoming Administration's difficult budgetary challenges.   Referencing their recently released report, constructed from open source data, they highlight the overall size of the nuclear budget compared to the amount given to other critical expenditures.  Even within the nuclear realm, Schwartz and Choubey argue that money is not being properly allocated to "locking down or eliminating nuclear threats at their source, before they can reach U.S. shores . . . or preparing for the consequences of a nuclear or radiological attack on U.S." Their recommendations include: 

• More money for State.  Applauding Clinton's call for money, they argue that, "State is the frontline agency tackling proliferation concerns with Iran and North Korea, shoring up a rocky relationship with Russia and pursuing cooperation with other states to secure nuclear materials and address the growing threat of nuclear terrorism."
• Increased oversight of nuclear funding.  Specifically, they propose, "Congress can remedy this by requiring the executive branch to submit, as part of the annual budget request, an unclassified and classified accounting of all nuclear weapons-related spending. A senior White House official . . .should be responsible for overseeing this exercise

Is giving a larger piece of the nuclear pie to State the answer?  Is more oversight of nuclear funding needed?  If so, how should it be done and can it work?