explain this in plain english. you are very smart. you have been gifted with a great mind. how much is genetic and how much is learned, i do not know. you have an unusual mind. you are also very young. sometimes one can get so fancy in the riding. some may attribute it to things that may not be there. can you take a crack at what the dialectical process is with the political branch is and what they represent and mean? >> certainly. i publix -- i said that i would be careful how i write opinions of five become a judge. .

[applause] [laughter] -- [laughter] all i mean to say in that article is that it is a characterization of the process in which the courts have gone back and forth with the exercise of a legislative power to define the scope of welfare rights. in that process, occasionally, " scott occasionally way yuan -- courts occasionally way in. what are our yuan that peace retains the final word with the -- what i wrote in that piece retains the final word belonging to the legislature. i hope that what comes through in the article is a posture of

judicial deference because what i am arguing against in the first half of the article is a strain of thinking that this popular in the 1960's and 1970's that judges should wholesale invent these things and come up with their own views of what the constitution requires. high wholesale reject that point of view. that is what the first half of the article is devoted to, a rejection of that point of view. >> could i defer to senator cornyn. >> effective just excuse myself right now -- if i could just excuse myself right now. >> sure. let me give you your second round now, so that you would that have missed it. >> thank you, madam chairman.

i assume you are familiar with the work of judge stephen reinhardt on the ninth circuit. >> i would not say i am familiar with his work, but i know a little bit about him and his reputation. >> did you recall having disagreed with a decision by judge reinhardt? >> center, i cannot even think of an opinion from him off of the top of my head. >> fair enough. is your theory of constitutional fidelity, substantively different than the living constitutional view endorsed by other levels dollars? >> i think the term living constitution has been used by all lot of people to mean a lot of things. i do not like the term. in the book, we reject the term. it suggests that the constitution is a malleable

document that can be read to have words in that that really are not in it. we take the position that the constitution is a written text for a special reason. the text was meant to be the enduring thing that judges would have to apply in deciding cases and not something that is outside of the text, and not something they would invent on the fly. >> on the issue of foreign law, a professor who is now at the state department has described the debate between a transnational lists and nationalists when it comes to the application of foreign law and its use, i believe he thinks that transnationalists have a critical role to play, yuan

nationalists' claim that only the political branches are authorized to domesticate the legal norms. did you agree with this distinction, and if you do, which are you, a transnational ist or a nationalist? >> frankly, i'm not familiar with this debate in the law. i would say that i think in the decision of what the american -- of the meaning of the american statutes are and the meaning of the american constitution, american presidents and american law are the things that control. >> changing subject again. in your article, "rethinking constitutional welfare rights" you write that legislation might give rise to a constitutional

well fell right if it has sufficient condition and durability reflecting the outcome of vigorous public contestation and the considered judgment of a highly engaged citizenry. i do not know if that would pass the standard for plain speaking. reflecting on the recent debate on health care reform, which passed after the vigorous public contestation, does that give rise to passing a law like that, i give rise to new constitutional rights? >> that is a good question. i do not have a view on that, because like many americans, i have not actually read the health-care legislation beyond that, -- legislation. beyond that, the durability of it is something that is remain

ing to be seen because i understand it is being challenged in the courts. members of congress may wish to revisit elements of it in the future. i think my initial take on your question, although i have not thought about it very much is that it is too early to tell. >> so, you would add least hold out the possibility that an act of congress could confer welfare rights or benefits that would somehow become constitutional in nature, which then could not be repealed by a subsequent conference. >> it could always be repealed. my theory does not suggest that it cannot be repealed. the term "constitutional" as i have used it is perhaps misleading. it only means to say that according to the court's precedents, the court has recognized in the application of, say people to process

principle, a recognition of the rights created by congress. in making decisions, it has given them new weight in the consideration of, say, eligibility restrictions or termination policies. those are the cases i have endorsed in that article as confirming that judicially cognizable rights. that is the only sense in which i mean those terms. >> in that same article, you cite the supreme court decision of 1973 it is an example of how a court may recognize a welfare right. you called it a plausibly appropriate case. could you list exceptional cases

in which it would be appropriate for the court to engage in substantive policy judgments and would you feel authorized to engage in such? >> i do not think i would feel authorized. i think it the loss of democratic process. in the article, if i recall correctly, i was critical of the marie decision because it went further in that regard then my theory would permit. >> thank you, professor. >> the hour of 12:30 has arrived. i would like to place some letters ofá >> the hearing will resume.

if i indicated, we will begin with the ranking the members. -- with the ranking members. if i might say something, procedure is a really to do two rounds for an appellate judge.

i want everyone to have an opportunity to ask questions. i suggest to the nominee that we will do just whatever it takes to have the questions asked and answered. i would beg the forbearance of the other four nominees although i suspect you do not mind not being in the hot seat. senator? >> thank you so much. we are in a serious location dealing with serious issues involving the appellate courts of the united states. it is a lifetime appointment. i remain an easy -- uneasy about some of the answers you get and how they square with what you have written before and what impact that has on my understanding of the clarity of your thought and how you

approach judgment. there is quite a bit of difference between a theoretical law professor and the practicality of day after day duty as enforcing contracts, disputes, and ruling on evidence. i have to say that. with regard to the death penalty, you have written a song about that. let me just ask you -- you have written some about that. let me ask you if he personally favored it. this would not impact my view of how you would conduct your office. i think judges can differ. i think the critical thing is will you follow the law? do you favor the death penalty? >> senator, i have not oppositions to the death penalty. i have never written anything

questioning its morality or constitutionality. i would have no problem following the law as written. >> in talking about a report on a panel you moderated called civil rights in the roberts court era as a part every framing the dialogue on race, you made some comments about it. you talked about changes in state courts and said in the part of that movement are changes in the state legislation and supreme courts which is the result of state court decisions that have got rid of some bad practices. some state legislation has gotten rid of some bad practices and then the absorption of that cultural shift into federal law through the eighth amendment. it seems to me that what you are

saying there is that legislation in various states can change how we should interpret the eighth amendment. do you mean that? and whether or not that applies to the death penalty? >> senator, i was reporting the way in which the supreme court has instructed that the eighth amendment be interpreted. the supreme court in its opinion looks to the practices of the state's in informing the meeting of the eighth amendment. >> i am not sure about that. it seems to me -- well, i can see that that would be a theory. is that the theory they used when they consistently dissented in every death penalty case asserting that that the death penalty violates the eighth amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment? >> senator, i am naturally not sure what the -- used to arrive

at that conclusion. the, you read attracts more closely the view that the justices have used since the time of brandon and marshall to articulate the standard by which they determine whether something is or is not constitutional under the eighth amendment. >> is it relevant to you that there are six or eight references in the constitution to the death penalty and it would be a stretch, would it not, to say that the constitution prohibits the death penalty and that any phrase like, cruel and unusual punishment, could be construed to eliminate what is positively referred to in six or eight different places? >> senator, i think that is very strong and important textual evidence that the fifth and 14th amendment to the constitution

talks about deprivation of life but is followed with the guarantee of due process of law. it is strong textual evidence. >> do you think action@@@@@@@ @ the implication of your remarks is that he could somehow have the cruel and unusual cause. the court has said consistently it is a constitutional punishment within the confines of other guarantees of the constitution. >> i haven't understood to outlaw the death penalty but

the other specific issues and to whom. >> two justices on the supreme court considered in every single death case on the clear view. sing their view, senator. >> you seem to in this quote. your quote here seems to suggest that you think that if the state's changes some of their views that it will somehow allow the eight amendments and federal judges to alter what i think is plainly a constitutional punishment. gosh, time flies. >> yes, questions are long. >> you have written arguing that the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment creates a positive rights, i would

summarize, that whatever benefits are necessary to fulfill all precipitation -- participation as a citizen and you go on to note that inequality and educational opportunities that the 14th amendment "guarantee of national citizenship" was a generative of substantial rights. i am uneasy to suggest the plan words of the 14th amendment are generating rights. you wrote that citizens have " positive rights to government assistance" as i understand it which are derived from the constitution, as i understand this. these rights can be guaranteed

not only against state abridgment but also as a matter of positive rights. you concluded that such an agenda would "include expanded access to health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training, and a robust and earned income tax credit." do you believe that, yes or no? >> i do believe that, senator, but those are addressed to policy makers and not the courts. >> that is an important distinction and i will review that. that seems to be your view on expanded governmental powers. what think you, senator sessions.

>> one thing and i will conclude. as you never did, -- as you noted, judicial philosophy is important. your writing is the only thing we have to evidence that. i do not think it is sufficient just to say that i will follow a 40 somewhere in the system because many times you will been having a case of first impression being in front of you and your philosophy will face -- will shape the law. >> you cannot sit -- say have not had adequate time. >> i want to get back to the question of the agenda before we had our break. you in a broadcast earlier this year, on jenna every third, on npr were discussing how the obama administration had a new

opportunity for the american constitution society. you said that under the obama administration and i will quote this, "they had an opportunity to get our ideas and the vision of the constitution -- our vision of the constitution in law and practice." what did you mean by "our ideas" and york"progressive views -- your "progressive views?" >> that was referencing the ideas that underpin the american constitution society. the mission statement of that organization braids, it is a dedication to certain basic principles of our constitution genuine equality, libertine, access, and a broad commitment to the rule of law. >> is it described as a progressive? >> i think many people have

described it that way. that is fair. the organization. the values are those of the constitution. i would not say they are progressive or conservative. those are the values in the constitution. >> you describe the opportunity to get our ideas and the progressive vision of policy into practice. i assume you subscribe to these views. when you talk about our ideas. >> the record shows, senator, i have been deeply involved in the american constitution society. i have sat on the board and chaired the board. >> there is nothing wrong with having views that are wrong. that is what you meant by the opportunity to get our views and to practice. -- into practice. the follow-up question is, i

guess you would say you were speaking in a policy way not through the judicial process. is that -- >> senator, the short answer is yes. look, i think every president has their own views of what vision they would like to enforce as the president. i do not think i was meaning anything more than just that. >> policy of to the appropriate ways of doing so. it is not a proper for a judge to have a policy agenda of that he brings to court to try and get the agenda adopted into law. >> absolutely. it would not be appropriate for any president to appoint a nominee for a judgeship because of that --

>> i will quote from an 18 -- in april 13th article in "politico." there were talking about the citizens united case. i think what people are going to do is say, do you share our concerns about the fact that the court always sides with the big corporate interest. do you think that is an accurate characterization of what the supreme court does? >> i think the supreme court tries as vast as it can to apply the law fairly and equally to all interests of the society whether they are ordinary people or corporate interests. >> do you think if you are on the ninth circuit court of appeals that you would have a bias or a preconceived notion or agenda to try and write a

balanced and roll more against big corporate interests? -- and rule were against them? >> absolutely not, senator. >> do you think that executive power has gone too big and that the courts should try and rein in and rebalance so that the executive power is more limited visa th a vis the other branche? >> courts can only decided cases presented to them based on applicable law. >> excuse me. your view would be that if this committee tried to promote the nominee because of our belief that that nominee would rule against big corporate interests or would rule against executive powers that it would be an inappropriate basis for us to

base support for a nominee on. that is bad grammar, but forgive me. >> obviously, senator, i will not pretend to suggest what standards this committee should use it in valuing a judicial nominee. that is your prerogative and not mine. i would say that for all judicial nominees, i think that the important test is whether the nominee would be faithful to the law that has been given. especially for a lower court nominee, like myself, in virtually all these areas the supreme court has said things and handed down precedence. this would have to be followed regardless of whatever theory the nominee had about the issue and whatever they may have written previously. >> thank you. >> think you very much, senator. the hour is now 1:30. i would like to rehearse or

adjourn this part of the hearing and move on to the four other judges. i know you are going to meet with liu separately. >> whenever you would like to do, obviously we can do. i can probably in about no more than 10 minutes and may be less than that conclude the questions that i have if that would better fit into the schedule. i and is going to try and truncate of this. [laughter] how about that for a test? we do not want to approach cases with a preconceived notion, do we? whatever you want to do, but i think i can fairly quickly gets through this. >> no more than 10 minutes and then we move on. >> that is acceptable. let me ask a question that i asked a previous nominee. the president had talked about using two different analogies

about judging, talking about the type of nominee he would nominate. the first was the first 25 miles of a 26 mile marathon. the critical ingredient of the cases is supplied by what is in the judge's heart. do you believe the law only takes a the first 25 miles of the marathon and the last mile has to be decided by what is and that the judge's heart attacks -- judge's heart? >> that is a colorful analogy, but i do not know if that is one i would describe to. -- ascribe to. judges should apply the law all of the way through. i do not think they're hard to have a bearing on what the outcome of a case should be. >> relative to the ledbetter case, you're asked in some cases

if it was important to determine -- to consider the effects of a decision on a person's life. that was a case where, from the supreme court's point of view, they determined it as they saw it. many people believe that the result led to an unfortunate results on her life of. -- results on her life. should the court has considered the effect on her life in making a decision that they did? >> senator, not to my knowledge. it would depend on what the applicable laws are to take into consideration. i do not believe that the effect on her life is the relevant

determinant there. >> presumably you would have tried to read the statute and if she lost than it was something to be corrected by the legislature if they decided to? >> i would look to the way the statute of limitations had been applied in the precedents. i would look@@@@@@h@ @ " >> my question was a little different. it wasn't how it affected her life. it was the practical consequences of legal law. in other words, the consequence of the law was so con vow looted that she should not have known that she should have been paid on a different pay scale. of course, i stand corrected. would that change your answer? >> to bring the two things closer together. i think it's important to

consider the kind of practical consequences senator feinstein speaks of. if the statute of limitations doctrine has within it. i don't know on top of my head what the doctrine says. upon notice, a person has to know that their rights are being violated. then one would have to inquire how the mob plays out. >> as you know, statute of the limitations law should have known. if the person should have known and still loses on benefits, the courses that is the way it is. is that correct? >> yes. >> one of the things he said in the keeping faith with the constitution was that the constitution requires adaptation of its broad principles to conditions we face today. you said the question is not how the constitution would have been applied at the founding but rather how it should be applied

today. i want to focus on the word should. and in light of changing needs, conditions, and understanding of our societies. that is a normative that term -- that is a normative term. what is the legal test for how you decide "should?" >> if i could address the ell ipses. it is how it should be preserved to protect the values. >> i did not have those words in here and that does make it different. >> i only need to say that the should as an however a judge feels it should apply. it is rather how it should apply in order to preserve with the text says and what the principles behind the text mean. >> one of the areas we have gone into in this context is the question of the role of religion

or faith in our society. i know today there is a story out of madison, wisconsin. a federal judge has ruled that the national day of prayer is unconstitutional. obviously, neither you nor i have read this decision, but can you think of any determinative issues that would support that ruling? >> i will confess that i have is that hardly any time of my career studying the religious clauses of the constitution so i am not familiar with the relevant precedents in that area. >> all right. let me conclude with this. he had been pretty outspoken in your criticism of the current supreme court.

in fact, you have suggested that it lacks principle and legitimacy. i specifically remember you said the bush vs. gore decision was pretty lacking. in another, you claimed that if you look across the entire brunt of the cases that you see a fairly consistent pattern where respect for precedent goes by the wayside when it gets in the way ever a result. but they obviously have a problem with -- you obviously have a problem with their decisions. these to the presidency would be asked to apply. you have not been bashful in expressing your series of -- serious opposition. you're telling us that not withstanding that they are utterly lacking legal principle, he would have to apply the principle -- you would have to apply that principle. >> senator, the reason that i

perhaps said those words is that the opinion itself stated that it was only to apply in that case. i am not sure i would apply that because it instructed in its terms -- >> that is a distinction with a difference. utterly lacking in legal principle is different than it would not apply to a future case. are you saying the court had no legal principle basis for the decision that it made in bush vs. gore? >> senator, i guess the only import of the phrase i chose their vote was that it was my thinking that a legal principle should be something that applies to more than one case because it is a principle. >> you do not think they used a principle but said they used some kind of pragmatic decision making in that case. >> senator, i will not try to characterize this, but i haven't written but i have written and said what i have said. >> you have said judge alito --

your very critical of that. -- you are very critical of that. would you like to create a fourth element of a tort? that is a fairly mechanical way of deciding how particular case gets decided. >> i think this goes back to your earlier question, senator kyl. the application of a tort or contract, there is a human aspect to judging. is not white -- is why we do not put this through a formula. >> what is the human aspect? i can understand that with sentencing, but i am not sure i can understand it in the case of defendant verses plaintiff. >> i think they must surely apply the law as it is given and followed it to the logical

consequence the matter with the result is. i think in the application of legal principle that judges are called on to exercise judgment with respect to the particular case. judges are human beings and there is often disagreement about the application of law and facts. the task for all judges remains the same which is applying lot to the facts of a specific case. >> that is a fair statement of the way it should be. we come to our positions with our preconceived notions, political ideologies, our notions and personal experiences can certainly shape how we view certain issues. the job of a judge is to try and remove as much of that from their decision making process as possible. would you not agree? >> i would absolutely agree. >> would you also agree that when someone has written as extensively as you have in very colorful language, you have not

been bashful in expressing very specific and strong ale views about things. this can give way to some question as to whether or not the views having been held that strongly with as much riding as you have done and with as much explicit criticism to people with a contrary point of view whether it is possible for you to lay aside his ideas or ideologies and approach cases from a purely objective, unbiased point of view. >> if i could offer one thought on that. i hope that my writings demonstrate that i am someone who is -- obviously, i have my views and i enables the take into account opposing views of others. frankly, i appreciate the opportunity to have this dialogue with you, senator sessions, and others about very important and controversial

issues of law about which there is very reasonable disagreement in america. in fact, one of the great things to think about this country and its legal tradition is that there is room for the disagreement. as much as i like my own views, i confess to you that i would be a little afraid if i was the only voice speaking and that everything went my way. that is not the kind of certainty that i have about my own views. i hope my writing reflects the more thoughtful writings reflect that discipline and restraint. >> madam chairman, thank you. if there is an opportunity for us to visit privately i would welcome that. i suspect there may be questions for the record falling out. goes without saying that you can add or elaborate on your answers. >> i would like to close this off with a few words.

questions? [laughter] >> i would note that sutton is here and he was a skilled attonrey -- attorney and that went on for 12 hours. we have had some long hearings. this certainly did not exceed the normal. with regards to your comments about constitutional fidelity that "it may be valid when the object of the interpretation is one of the constitution's concrete and specific commands." you should show fidelity to

that. for example, i think you have noted that revenue bills must rise in the house. what about the second amendment which states that the rights to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? is that a precise command that cannot be abridged by unelected judges? >> senator, the supreme court has clearly said it is a command that projects an individual's right to bear arms. >> there is some uncertainty about it all and whether or not it applies to cities and states. what is your view on the second amendment? is it clear on that subject? you do not hesitate to say that new revenue bill must go in the house. do you hesitate to say the right to bear and keep arms shall not be infringed. >> senator, i confess i have not

fought about or written about the second amendment in any great detail. the book discusses the second amendment as an example of where judges have applied a basic approach to debt -- to constitutional interpretation that takes into effect the original meaning and the text but also the practical consequences of precedent. that is the extent of any view that i have about the second amendment. i really could not go further. >> you said you felt that quotas were unconstitutional. that is your personal analysis on that are based on the supreme court? >> that is my view, senator. >> i am troubled. i am troubled that you have written that it should be consigned to the dustbin of history. they give preference to one

person or another as a result of the color of their skin or ancestry. i ask you if that is inconsistent. how can you dismiss so firmly this decision when it seems to be based on similar theories as quotas? >> it is a precedent of the court and of course i would have to follow it as a judge. i think my disagreement with that case does not have anything to do with its central holding which was that all racial classifications by current be by government are held to suspicion by the court. i have held to that principle and in my writings and i have not urged the court to revisit it in any way. the only disagreement i have is its extension of the principles of the case that the with the obligations of states rather than the federal government with respect to the latitude given to

affirmative action programs. i took a broader view than the court did on that particular issue and that is the on the point of disagreement i have with that case. >> one final thing. i am curious about the american constitution society. so many members of the obama administration talk about a progressive agenda. as i understand it, the progressive movement started in the early 1900's. one of their doctrines was that in the people knew best and that the constitution was an impediment for them to do what is best for those on educated people out there in the country. is that in any way the constitution society -- the american constitution society's view? >> senator, i think your question rightly exposes the hazard of using labels of that

sort. i guess i will put this in plain terms which is that the american people have always, i think, demonstrated great reverence for our constitution because they think of it as a set of principals in a document that they can embrace as their own. i do not think it is a question of whether policymakers, judges, or others are wiser than the people. there's no greater wisdom than that resides in the the american people. that has sustained the country throughout its many years as a nation dedicated to the rule of law under our own constitution. >> >> i'd like to conclude this now, but i'd like to say, i've been very, very impressed with you personally. you came my home in stran. we spent a couple of hours. my daughter happens to be a judge.

we had a good conference. i cannot in my time on this committee remember anybody quite so young that has done so much. i have great respect for that. i think the thing that all of us have to remember is that this is a very i do verse country. the law is equal for everybody. within that law, there's certain tensions and i do loug. there's cases in point and not in point. it really takes a mature mind and someone i think that is willing to weigh the scales equally on both sides and make that transition from an advocate to a judge. judge chen was an advocate. he has been eight years as a

imagine straight judge and has been able to demonstrate that. here you are being appointed to the circuit court. you haven't had an opportunity to demonstrate that for a period of time. you did not make an opening statement. i would ask you to make a very brief concluding statement just on that point. i guess i would say as you look across my entire record, there are many things relevant to the kind of judge i would be. in my scholarship, i hope that the record shows that i am a rigorous and disciplined person who makes arguments carefully in 8 nuanced way taking into account all of the other

possible ways of looking at an issue and where i have decided to lay down my view, i have respectfully treated the views of others. i think if you look at my teaching, and many of my former students are here today, i hope you would find i am a good listener, i did not seek to impose my views on other people. rather what i tried to do is give this at all of the different points of view that could eliminate an issue. i hope that accounts for something that i have one, at least around some, the respect of colleagues that see the temperament, collegiality, and balanced judgment that have enabled me to perform certain leadership positions and be involved with various organizations that require that skill said. although, senator, i cannot hold up for you a judicial resonate

-- a judicial resume that demonstrates the quality of a judge, i hope you'll find analogous evidence in some of the other things i have done. >> thank you very much. i am going to excuse you. i would like to correct the record. there are four of us that are non-lawyers. we believe we see the forest rather than the trees. thank you very much for being here today. >> i offered to the record some letters. i have 10 letters here from judicial action group, judicial watch, liberty counsel, 42 california district attorneys who say for many years our ability to enforce the law and protect the citizens of our jurisdiction has been hampered by erroneous decisions of the united states court of appeals from the ninth circuit. this court has been far out of

the judicial mainstream. they say that under no circumstances should any nominee be confirmed to the ninth circuit who would take that court further in the wrong direction. regrettably, the president has sent such a nominee. the concerned women of america, crime victims united of america, the american conservative union. >> well, thank you. the letters will go on the record. i would like to submit to the record a list of the 24 court nominees confirmed under the bush administration who had no prior experience as a judge. those documents will go into the record. we will call up -- it thank you very much, professor liu, to those wonderfully well-behaveññ

>> sunday on "q&a" at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> this weekend, the first of three british election debates. for the first time, prime minister depord an brown and nick cle depnch g will face off in u.s.-style debates. watch them live. >> this year, c-span student cament competition asked students to crow ate a video. here's one of the second place

winners. >> there's plenty struggling today. the amount of solid weavet becomes more and more costly. the facts and figures in the epa are truly staggering. did you know 100 million tons. that's 54%. you can't recycle everything. wouldn't it be good if we could reverse that process? >> today, we'll look at green technology. consideration, insineratters

have been used in the past. however, they crow aten rirnemental concerns. one popular system collects methane gas. this methane gas can be processed and turned no natural gas or electricity. methane depass is natural. it's the same gas you use in your stove. we are getting out of the ground less than $2 a unit jofment one problem with this technology is that all the solids in a land phil are still

being wasted. >> a very interesting project, all of it goes into a large megawat of power. talking about technology called plaza art classification. i'm interviewing the president and chief education officer. >> a technology for taking waste materials and turning it no grass, a glass that comes out of a vol cane owe. the melters are basically, you take glass into this pool and dissolve the things you want to

vitrfy. a lot of materials you want to vitrfy are made up of those harmless and harmful materials. what the depoys came up with, using a sort of a plasma zone where it was a very hot gas inside a contain that are could break apart the waste material no a component at toms. it's fundamentally a vitrification melter with as plaza so that the inoregon tick materials go into the deprs and the organic materials becomes gas. >> so basically this is how it works. waste is brought into a pregas

sight. there the waste gives off hydrogen and carbon gases. the waste falls no a chamber. there, temperatures can reach up to 10,000 degrees cell see youse. it converts the waste into functioning elements. everything else turns no a metal compound. and the byproducts? >> the only buy product are the kind of glass. it looks like obsidian.

on one of our videos, a former ce sonch and scientist it can be used in the construction of roads to go into asphalt or as gravel to go into asphalt or concrete defending on how finely it's smashed up. the final product is sin gas. it is a mixture of carbon and hydrogen gas. if you take all the garbage that we today land phil in the u.s. you would turn all that into

syngas that's billions of gallons of fuel a year. let's compare the different technologies. first of all, we have ins ineration. and we have land phil wells. it only collects the methane gas and wastes all the other depasses, which brings us to plaza art he had if i indication. also gas and metals used in construction along with other things. the problem is that it costs a

lot. there is no perfect solution. however, there are technologies out this to help them stop wasting this waste and give us a better future. to see all of the winning entries this year in the stow dent calm competition, visit student cam .org. . .