on c-span. president donald trump will announce his nominee for the supreme court. filling the vacancy left by retiring justice anthony kennedy. watch the announcement live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> every monday your money segment. today we are focusing on the cost of protecting -- safe guarding nuclear wilhelmsen. joining us is john donnelly. john donnelly. he has been looking at this topic and what have you learned? guest: i have done a few studies on this. the extent to which we spend on the defense nuclear nonproliferation program, meant

to safeguard the supplies of nuclear materials and keep them out of the hands on -- the hands of terrorists -- it has declined. , becauset an issue after his first few years, spending started declining. trump has continued it that way. ifthe last eight years, trump's budget is enacted, there 18% decline inan spending on these programs. and looking out over the next few years, trump wants to increase them at a 7.5% rate but there isn't enough to even keep pace with inflation. so there has been a real shrinking of it.

and there is no indication that the threat has declined. host: in terms of numbers, what are we talking about? over $1 billion. is fiscal 2019 trump request 1.2 $5 billion for the program. the energy department request $11 billion for nuclear warheads associated infrastructure. and those two programs are in the same organization. and they compete for the same budget pie. and critics and arms-control advocates are concerned that as nuclear weapons spending has increased, and it has gone up 60% in the energy department in -- same years -- 11 2011-2019, it has crowded out spending. this is the study from

rollcall. what led you to this topic? in 2014, when dianne feinstein, the california who was in the senate sharing the energy and water subcommittee -- she did a report accompanying their spending bill that was one of the most alarming reports i have ever seen come up of congress. talking about thousands of sites , university and medical facilities, that have radiological facilities. them for not secured. so i started watching the threat and how, you despite rhetoric, both obama and trump -- to the is one of the gravest national security ," spending went

down. some of the efforts of international efforts to control and safeguard nuclear materials were not being efficiently run. a bottleneck. the argument was that he can't spend much more than we are spending now. but that argument start for several years. so what critics say is, come on. the problem isn't got away. usean find other ways to the money that will be more effective. senator feinstein today is the ranking member of the spending subcommittee. and she tells me she is waiting for a plan from the trump administration to come up with new approaches. john we are speaking with

donnelly. in terms of the mechanics of securing nuclear materials, what is involved? guest: it runs the gamut. everything you can think of from fences to alarms to the detecting of materials that might the in transport. radioactivity monitors. and increasingly cyber security is a concern. because it turns out that many of the countries that have either weapons usable materials, like english uranium at plutonium for civilian rich from 2000 10-2016, with

the nuclear security summit, there is one every couple of years. but they are not happening and more. this is one of the reasons why wanted to write this story. the world's attention is waning to this problem. it seems like we have the islamic state, that is all couple talked about the of years ago. but there is a mono-and, we can all on one thing at a time. now, all we talk about his russia and china. in terms of the focus of national leadership, terrorism has started to proceed from the front page. you frameh is how your story in the beginning paragraphs.

dipped inng has recent years. and donald trump plans to keep it that way according to budget documents. what is the reaction on capitol hill? this is a lower tier issue. this is an something people give speeches on until something happens, god for bid. and i don't think the reaction will be, well, our funding with the russians -- that is why we didn't do enough. obviously, people last card questions but it is the kind of thing that where you ask a harder question later, unfortunately. good morning.

we are focused on how much we are or are not spending to secure nuclear materials. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independent callers, (202) 748-8002. john is joining us. good morning. i think we have a serious problem here with the money. what happens to america when no longertes dollars work as a currency. guest: i don't know if that is an issue. stronglar is pretty darn right now. i'm getting ready to go to europe and i'm pretty happy about it. there is a weapons usable materials like uranium and plutonium.

civilian uses. there are thousands of sites in the united states. thousands more overseas. thousands of tons of the stuff. anticancer treatments they use cobalt 60, a radioisotope. in medicaluff is facilities around the world. there was a facility that had it in mosul and there was concern that the islamic state would figure that out. nuclear security isn't at the top of the list. so it really is everywhere. now, what are some of the advocates, what do they want to do? they want to find ways, wherever possible, to have

non-radiological sources for these processes. for one thing. solution thatial thathave started on but critics say they need to do more of is nuclear energy reactors, converting them to lower uranium. those are the kinds of things that can be done. but the shorter answer is that everywhere is where the stuff is. some of it is ready to be used in bombs, some of it is radiological materials. this is a low probability risk. but the potential harm is great. that is why it needs to be a major focus. terrorists could use highly toiched uranium or plutonium

have an atomic bomb. but that is not nearly as likely. i don't know if you have heard the term dirty bomb, you explode that in a city. not necessarily all lot of would beuld die but it extremely terrorizing. it would have a cascade of the from everything to economics to civil liberties. that is one of the major concerns, even though overall, highisn't necessarily a

risk threat, the dirty bomb is what people worry about the most because it is attainable. there a country that is doing it right? a place we can learn from? is an international effort. there are countries that do it right. host: not that we are doing it wrong but just as an example. don't have an example that we could follow. it is an international issue. moldova, it in won't stay in moldova. moldova, they found a ring of -- they claimed

to have nine milligrams. they don't know if they are bluffing about it. host: our topic is the money segment. back to your phone calls. texas.rom good morning. from aprilerved 1974-may 1975 on a weapon storage site in northern italy.

our security was a combination of high tech and arms and each one had a power locking system. had low-tech security. is, who in for you the world is taking care of this stuff now when i can read about people on the icbm site who is on drugs and have drinking problems and gambling problems -- who takes care of these people? states hasunited secure systems in place for the nuclear weapons and for the plutonium and enrich uranium. caller raises annexed on point. there was a recent story about the lsd ring at an air force -- nuclearase

flown to louisiana and they didn't know that they had live nuclear weapons on board the plane and the plane sat on the tarmac for 24 hours before they realized the error. this caused a huge shakeup in leadership for good reason. it is in the kind of thing where you can look at it and say, we took care of that issue and move onto the next. it is constant vigilance. host: should we be concerned about what north korea will look nuclear materials? -- this is a tweet. guest: absolutely. every country that has nuclear weapons or energy -- and there are more countries that use or expand them,

the international community needs to help. that theyd to mention plan to reduce spending over the next five years. 7.5% but to grow by within the total, there were serious cuts. compared to what obama had safeguardo control or nuclear weapons. so that is an element of this.

in this case it would be penny if thed pound foolish whatme will be hurt by they don't do -- north korea is sealed from the world. whatever they come up with, it will be an element. there will be the access to make are that whatever they building. host: any idea of how much this is off inventory? loose inventory? we don't know. there may be a classified

assessment somewhere. there hasn't been any kind of round of materials. the former georgia democratic senator, his group -- it is really hard. as you murky as an area can get. we're not saying out loud that this is something we want to .ccomplish host: grant is next. caller: john glenn and senator stewart passed a couple of amendments.

do you thinkon is that should be enforced and the unequivocaln -- --t the israelis diverted from the plant in pennsylvania to build 10 weapons. is, do you to you think that the uranium, enriched uranium, should be returned to the united states as an effort to show that the u.s. actually is serious about the issue. ignoring the israeli air -- the israeli system.

host: you know a lot about this issue? caller: i wrote a book. ofis a result of hundreds documents about the agency and the fbi investigation and inability to do anything about this particular version. i haven't tracked the issue.port control if this is true then it is a serious concern. and there is a double standard about how we treat certain countries in the world versus others. and this threat is eight democratic one. it doesn't matter whether inerials were unsecured allies facilities or enemy facilities. if it comes back to bite us, it

bites us. host: we go to texas, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my question and call. this is a really important subject. my comment and question is this. trump tore up the iran nuclear deal. that agreement was a multilateral agreement worked out by european parties and the british foreign service worked on that for 10 years. and they tore it up. reviewable bywas our congressmen and trump tore it up. antonelli find that we need every line of the agreement when we negotiate with north korea. pompeo could go look at that agreement and say, well, we need every bit of that to deal with north korea's nuclear program. guest: yes.

well, that certainly is the case that any country that has nuclear weapons, if you are toss them out, you have to offer them something. so there will be something offered to north korea as there was to iran. theas was the case with iran deal. there needs to be some kind of monitoring and inspection program. ironic that shortly after tearing up the agreement, the president is in the process of coming up with something very similar with the north koreans. ont: good questions coming twitter. from johnny -- are you looking forward to a nuclear safeguard solution out of the upcoming nato summit? that gets underway tomorrow. and don't know. it may be. on the agenda.

reality, when these things happen, there is only one or two issues that rise to the top. there is only so much time for leaders to talk about issues. and it may be somewhere in item hierarchies for nato. but in terms of top-level attention, not getting it. which agencies are responsible for this? the department of energy national nuclear security administration and the state department has a key role. host: josh is joining us from the democrats line. talking to john donnelly. this band.nk you for it cost to get that cleaned up and the other costs of the nuclear site in the u.s. -- where has the budget money gone for all of that? host: thank you.

guest: it is a huge bill. not just nuclear remediation but environmental cleanup in general definitely in the billions that they are spending. but the problem is that there are so many -- probably $100 billion or more that needs to be spent to clean up all the facilities. so it is a liability over their heads. they spend a lot of money but it is a problem that dwarfs the budget. host: diana from maryland. good morning. and comment you made about what is the most important issue -- whose responsibility is it -- is it the president's responsibility? or the legislative branch? to make sure that we have a list

of priorities and that the american public is capped in line -- ok, the nuclear threat is number five. who do we look to you? because now it seems like we have a president who goes off on all of these crazy tangents and to make things that are not important important. like an american citizen, middle-class i am 71 and i get social security. who do i look to? i don't think there is anyone in the government right now who doesn't get distracted. obama wase intelligent and he kept that what is important.

but as far as i can see, we don't have anyone now. what do you think about that? guest: presidential leadership is critical in general and on this issue in particular and in general. that most an issue people aren't clamoring about. this is the kind of thing that is easily ignored without a president stepping up to say, hey. this is something we have to pay attention to. even though obama did decrease spending and the latter part of his ministration, he deserves credit for putting the focus on advocate and being an for the nuclear summits that occurred between 2000 10-2016. congress has a role. if the president doesn't step up and lead, lawmakers have to take the initiative. but again, this is an issue that constituents are not calling

about, they feel no pressure to do anything about it. host: we go back to dianne feinstein, the number one democrat on the appropriations panel. tell you that the threat of a terrorist with a dirty bomb is something we have to take seriously? is the u.s. taking this seriously enough? i think you can ask the question. if we were spending 18% more in 2011, why do we spend 18% less now? is the threat 18% less? i'm not saying that there is a butc number, budget number, it seems to me that it is clear that it is a major international problem with thousands of materials that are not secure. and with the cyber threat emerging, it could get worse and worse. so this is something that needs

great attention. all i am saying is, let's talk about it. let's ask the questions. i don't know what the number is or if there is one but it needs to be talked about. the next call comes from missouri. good morning, you are with john donnelly from rollcall. caller: it is nice to have you. the day before yesterday i just by -- "voicesook chernobyl. we are right on with the concern we need to pay to this. the book's first-hand accounts of people who were used to clean up the accident. chernobyl cancer is even worse.

something grew on him. his neck disappeared and his tongue fell out. he began to bleed and he was 45-year-old. -- if everyone has seen suggest they do. because the scene of a young onentist who touched for month thousands of a second, he touched it and said he was dead and 10 days later he was. this is dangerous. it should never have been spread the way it has over the earth. i believe it may have made the earth uninhabitable. and there are people who know that. what do you think? guest: thank you for your call. i would say that we need to be aware that nuclear energy has

been -- comparatively speaking, a relatively safe endeavor. and i don't mean to characterize that as something that by itself isn't a problem. the issue is, how to re-controlling some of the materials that go into nuclear power plants and the radiological materials used in industrial processes. judging by the amount of materials that still are not safeguards or safeguarded effectively, we are not doing well enough. and the consequences potentially are the kind of stuff that the caller talked about. host: the reason for the 18% cut, what are they? guest: a lack of focus. reasons for some the reduction. i mentioned the discontinuance of the russian program. which accounted for a lot of it. and i mentioned the backlogs, the bottle legs with -- the

automatic score some of it. the money was piling up and piling up and that is the explanation that was given. but that explanation has been given for years. and if you have to say, that isn't working, let's find another approach. also, one thing that critics point out is that this idea of unspent money from prior years a a reason not to appropriate sufficient in this fiscal year, you don't hear that as often on weapons programs as you do for nonproliferation programs. with weapons programs, they have a few years to spend. the sameay that isn't -- but it is a double standard. is the headline.

this is the reporting of john donnelly announcer 1: president donald trump will announce his nominee for the supreme court, filling the vacancy left by retiring justice anthony kennedy. watch the announcement live at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. ♪ c-span's "washington journal" live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. tuesday morning, former advisor ben rhodes discusses significant political and policy decisions of the obama administration. and marjorie dan filter talks about president trump's supreme court nominee and pro-life agenda. research watch "washington journal" live tuesday morning.

join the discussion. thursday we will hear from the fbi's former senior official for the counterintelligence division. he will testify on department of justice actions surrounding the 2016 presidential election and the clinton email investigation. online coverage begins at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. at can tune in online c-span.org or use the free radio app. steve: are there any names that have been