how about this for a christmas present? all right now on "fox news sunday." we are head inside a big week. a presidential summit with the new congressional leaders and the debt commission finishes its work. joining us are two key senators. republican lindsey graham and democrat clare mccaskill. work back to "fox news sunday." >> thank you. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: start with korea. the u.s. and south korea began exercises in the yellow sea, ignoring protests from north korea and china. you are both members of the senate armed services committee. how should the u.s. deal with the growing threat from north korea and how should we respond to china's new call for emergency talks? senator graham, why don't you start? >> number one, you go forward with the exercises. you don't flinch. this is a very unstable regime who stays in power through fear and in immigration. i worry about south korea. i worry about the democracy in south korea. china has a chance to change the future of the korean peninsula. i'm looking at china to step up their game against north korea and try to bring them in the fold of a peaceful nation. i think we should push china hard and keep the sanctions on north korea. >> chris: senator mccaskill the same questions to you, how should we deal with north korea and china plays the games let's have the talks but never really put any pressure on north korea. is it time to give up ever restraining the regime in pyongyang? >> i don't think to. china obviously borders on this country and i think china calling for a resuming of the six party talks is important. typically we have been wanting six party talks and china has not been as enthusiastic. i think that is a good sign. i agree are lindsey, we need to continue the exercises and take a strong stand. this is brazen and belligerent and something that i believe that all of those six countries, all of the people in the six party talks need to get to work on including russia i might add which is why the start treaty is also important mere. >> chris: brings me to my next subjecty is kind of complicated but the wikileaks website is expected to engage in another massive document dump this time of state department cables in the next 24 hours. there is speculation that among the classified documents that will be released are embarrassing assessments of russian leaders, possibly secrets from negotiations with the russians on arms control. what do you make of the latest wikileaks documents dump and what impact, could is if it does have in information about the russians and arms control negotiations what impact could it have on ratification of the start treaty? >> one, leaking the material is deplorable. i agree with the pentagon's assessment that the people at wikileaks could have blood and their hands. i do know are this, that it would about he good for the united states and russia to enter into the start treaty if it as good treat. the question for me, are we absolutely certain that we can proceed with missile defense development apart from the start treaty? it is my belief that you did not allow the start treaty to interfere with the missile defense of this nation. we are at risk here from iran, north korea and other actors. i don't know what the cables may say but it is just -- we are at war. i mean the world is getting dangerous by the the day and people who do this are low on the food chain as far as i'm concerned if you can prosecute them let's try. >> chris: you talk about missile defense. i mean yes, there is some language in the preamble which is nonbinding but the administration says that doesn't in any way bind the u.s. and you had all these republican wisemen like henry kissingernd former secretary of state baker come and say that they think start is important. why doesn't that persuade you? >> jon kyl is a wise man and he has brought up a good point. the preamble to the start treaty negotiated with the russians indicates that the russians could withdraw from the treaty if we develop the four stage of missile defense. here is a simple question. are the russians looking at that preamble as a provision that prevents us from developing strategic missile defense systems? if it is interpreted by the shans that way i need to -- by the russians that way i need to know before i vote. vote. if they say it doesn't mean that i think we are a lot closer to the treaty being enacted. >> chris: senator mccaskill two questions for you. one about the the wikileaks dump and second about the new star treat. >> lindsey is right. the people who are leaking these documents need to do a gut check about their patriotism and i think they are enjoying the attention they are getting but frankly it is coming at a very high price in terms of protecting our men and women in uniform and national security and i hope that we can figure out where this is coming from and go after them with the force of law. the second thing about the start treaty, you know, this is really amazing to me and lindsey graham is a responsible senator who doesn't play these games but there is game playing going on with the start treaty and it is all about politics and all about trying to damage the president of the united states. and this is a moment where we need to set that aside and look at what really this is. this is a treaty supported by our military. this is a treaty supported by our allies. this is a treaty supported by secretaries of state from both president bushes, henry kissinger, jim bakker, colin powell. keeping our nations safe from strategic nuclear weapons. we have gone months without any verification of loose nukes. look at dick luger who i think instead of hiding behind the skirts of jon kyl look at the ranking member of the foreign relations committee who said we need to do the start treaty and look at what is going on in the world right now with north korea and iran as our supply lines to the men in women in afghanistan this treaty is important because your relationship with russia is important to move supplies to our men and women in afghanistan. i think it is time for us to do what we have always done in this country and do this in a bipartisan way. >> chris: nascar graham, quickly and then i will move on to another subject. >> does the preamble to the start treaty allow the russians to opt out of the treaty if we develop the fourth stage of the missile defense as the pentagon said we are going to do. >> the preamble is not binding. everybody knows that it is not binding. >> the russians say that it is. >> first of all, first of all, we absolutely went to nato after this treaty had been inked and all of our allies signed the agreement to continue with missile defense. i can't find anybody. i can't find anybody in any document anywhere that is saying that somehow that preamble has any impact. we are moving ahead with the missile defense. >> chris: with all due respect we are not going to solve this here and guys if i can move on to another subject. i know this is something particularly you senator graham want to talk about and that is about terror detainees and how we handle them. we had secretary of state clinton on "fox news sunday" last week and despite the fact that the alleged coconspirator, i guess he has now been convicted in the case of the bombings of the u.s. embassies in africa, although he was convicted on one count he was acquitted and all of the other 284 counts. despite all of that here is what secretary clinton said last week about the handling of detainees in federal civilian trials. let's look. >> when you look at the success record in civilian courts of convicting, sentencing, detaining in maximum security prisons by the civilian courts it surpasses what yet has been accomplished in the military commissions. >> chris: senator graham, what do you make of secretary clinton's argument and are you going take action? i know you have an amendment out there. are you going to take action to block civilian trials especially of the 9/11 coconspirators? >> i believe in all of the above approach to terrorism trials. there is a place for article three civilian courts in some cases like the christmas day bomber, a guy caught fresh off the plane, probably a low level al-qaeda operative. i will do everything in my power to make sure that khalid shaikh muhammad and the coconspirators of 9/11 never see a civilian court. it is a big mistake to criminalize the war and take someone you held under the law of war as an enemy combatant and then put them in civilian court. it is a disaster waiting to happen. i believe i have the votes to block it. i don't think khalid shaikh muhammad will let approval to see a civilian court. he should be tried at guantanamo bay and be tried now. he was ready to plead guilty before the obama administration stopped the trial. we have have him in a military trial beginning monday and get this behind us. >> chris: you supported closing guantanamo and moving all to u.s. prisons in the wake of the galani verdict and the wake of what you just heard from senator graham on khalid shaikh muhammad isn't that adedead? >> lindsey and i have spent time as prosecutors and he is right. all of the born need above neee available and each case should be dictated by the facts and evidence and circumstances. the highest level operatives of 9/11 those trials should be in a military setting. but that doesn't mean that the civilian courts should not be available as lindsey has indicated in some instances. i think this has to be done on a case-by-case basis and i think largely senator graham has done some yeoman's work trying to upgrade our military commission trials and working in a reasonable way to make sure and here is what the president i know is most concerned about, making sure that none of these terrorists ever see the light of day. >> chris: let's move on to another big subject. quite a week in washington. our senate armed services committee is going to hold a series of hearings this week on the question of whether or not to repeal don't ask don't tell. senator mccaskill the pentagon will formally release at your hearings this study which reportedly says that most military troops do not abject to repeal of the policy. and yet senator graham and senator mccain are saying they want another study. are they in the process of moving the goal line? >> well, i don't know. i do know this -- that gay members of the military have served for decades. and there hasn't been a problem with our military being the finest in the world. the question is can they serve with integrity? and i think our military is the kind of organization that wants to make sure that everyone can serve with integrity. second baseman' looking forward to seeing the -- so i'm looking forward to seeing the study and the results of the study and i think that we should move forward to make sure that any person who stands up and says i'm willing to die for our country can do so with honor. >> chris: senator graham, the pentagon has been studying the issue for months. the secretary of defense and chairman of the joint chiefs both say they favor repeal. why isn't that enough? >> there are service chiefs who object to repeal, particularly mat reason corps and the question was asked of the military members is how would you implement don't ask don't tell once it is repealed? they didn't ask the question should it be repealed. this is a political promise made by senator obama when was running for president. there is no ground swell of opposition of don't ask don't tell coming from the military. this is all politics. i don't believe there is anywhere near the votes to repeal don't ask don't tell on the republican side. i think we will be united in the lame duck. the study was asking military members should it be repealed not how to implement it once you as a politician decide to repeal it. i think in the lame duck session don't ask don't tell is not going anywhere. >> chris: the president is going to be meeting with congressional leaders of both parties on tuesday at the white house. this is the first meeting since the mid term elections. and they are going to discuss a number of issues and let's go through a couple of them. senator mccaskill would you support a temporary extension for several years of the bush tax cuts both for the middle class and for those making more than $250,000 a year? >> well, i think we should draw the line in the sand for millionaires. honestly with all of the talk and righteous i indignation abt the deficit are we going to hold up tax cuts for all of america just for the millionaires and i think that is where we should draw the line? our deficit is serious. anybody who believes that that small tax differential for millionaires is going to make a difference on job creation hasn't been paying attention. many more things we can do that are stimulative to the economy tan taking care of the millionaires. we have done a net tax cut of $300 billion in the last 18 months most if h focused on the middle class and businesses. would back off ofgsters back $250,000 and say extend the bush tax cuts for everyone making less than $1 million a year. >> that is what i think is the right approach and that is the approach i will be working for. i can't speak for the rest of the caucus and i can't speak for the president of the united states. i think it is ridiculous with the deficit looming that we could actually be held hostage, the middle class could be held hostage by trying to give tax cuts frankly to families like mine and others the last thing in the world the 3% differencial is going mean is more jobs. >> chris: senator graham? >> i'm not going to vote to raise taxes on anybody in america. millionaires included. if you want to make the economy, raise taxes on anybody. it is a bad idea. it will telebipartisan support in the lame duck to extend all the tax cuts for two or three years and i think that vote will be had before the end of the year. if the president doesn't support that i think he is running the risk of making the economy weaker at a time where he could help make it stronger through bipartisan support by republicans and democrats to extend all the democrats and stop playing class warfare and let's get the economy going. >> chris: few people, senator graham, expect that the debt commission -- expect to get the super majority to pass anything. does that mean deficit reduction is dead? >> i want to say something positive about clare. she said some nice things about me. she has been working with jeff sessions to reduce spending to 2008 levels or freeze it to last year's budget would save about $100 billion. i want to applaud her and senator sessions. the commission probably is dead. we are not going to have a national sales tax. no republican is going to vote for that. i will make a challenge on your show to any democrat particularly my friend claire. let's see if we can do something about entitlements. the game is entitlement reform. come up with a way to increase the wage for people under 55 for social security medicare purposes. calculate can recal late benefits to save social security from bankruptcy. see if we could do something to save it from bankruptcy and get away from the partisanship about the rich and poor. we will all in this together in terms of social security. >> senator mccaskill would you accept benefit cuts and that was one of the things the co-shares agreed to, would you accept benefit cuts in entitlements. >> i think we need to look at means testing and the next generation and generation following what is the appropriate age for retirement. do we need to tweak that slightly which is all we would need to do frankly to make social security safe and secure for generations to come. and do we really need to be bying prescription drugs for billionaires? can we afford that? i don't know. i think lindsey if he is willing to sit down and talk about this i will be there and let's try to figure out a way to go forward that is politically responsible. >> chris: senator graham, let me ask you -- senator graham i'm going to give you an opportunity to respond but i want you to -- one of the other things because you are talking about what republicans particularly want to see which is cuts in spending but in its report the debt commission also said let's have a formula three to one spending cuts to tax increases and they were willing to -- they said there have to be rev increases as part of the deal. would you accept that? >> well, when you look historically when we raised taxes the economy slows. and we don't get any more revenue. when we cut taxes the economy grows and we maintain the same amount of revenue generally whether or not we raise or lower taxes. so let's keep taxes low to create jobs. here is what i would say to upper income americans like me, you and claire. why should the government buy our presumption drugs? this is a way for people in the upper incomes to help the country become solvent without raising taxes which kills jobs. look at my benefits when i retire. i will have a military retirement and congressional retirement. i'm willing to give up some social security because we can't afford to pay me what is promised. i'm willing to do that and i bet you and claire would be, too. that is the way to get upper income americans to solve the debt problems without raising taxes which kills jobs. >> chris: let's talk some pure politics. senator mccaskill you are up for reelection in 2012 and i don't have to tell you republicans say you are one of the most vulnerable democratic senators. you are now touting your independence from president obama but looking back at your record over the last two years you voted for the stimulus. you voted for healthcare reform. you voted for financial regulation. so where is your independence from this president and his agenda? >> i'm opposed to cap and trade. i voted against the omnibus and the second round of crash for clunkers. i voted against every omnibus bill and voted against comprehensive immigration reform. long list of things when i separated. when he was a senator he and i didn't always vote together. my record of independence stretches back for a long time and i have to make sure that missourians know about that and i'm used to being an underdog. it is not an uncommon place to be if you are from missouri in elections and so i'm anticipating being an underdog in the election and that means i have to work twice as hard which is okay with me. >> chris: beyond these specific issues, is there a conceptual area in which you think this president is wrong? >> well, i think that there have been -- i think, frankly, there have been not enough focus in terms of the job creation at a point in time, we did the stimulus and did what has been by the way, wildly successful, the tarp and especially look what happened with general motors. we saved made in america for domestic auto production. we saved thousands of jobs and entire communities because of what we did with general motors. >> chris: my question is where is the president wrong? >> at the point in time we did the big things moving in healthcare at that particular time i think was very difficult because the american people were just beginning to feel this economic slump and they are going wait a minute you guys are arguing about a lot of inicy that is complicated and healthcare and i'm worryd that my son just lost his job and is moving back in the house and i can't pay for my kid's college. i think many of the things didn't get the focus they should have at that point in time. >> chris: senator graham you are safely not up for reelection until 2014 but i want to ask you about the tea party. what role do you think they will play over the next two years and what to you think of this talk from some to the degree that there are leaders in the tea party who are now saying let's get into social i