Learning to be in the room: AAEC students in Washington, D.C. with Congress, industry, and the markets
- Students: Diego Cuadra, Zach Cooper, Alex Fuentes, Abby Johnson, Elisabeth McFee, William McWilliams, Adam Sarnovsky, Duong Ta, and Amanda Thrasher
- Faculty: Mario A. Ortez, assistant professor of agribusiness and Bridge Experience director
- Postdoctoral associate: Eugene Nuworus
By Mario Ortez
On September 22 - 23, 2026, undergraduate and graduate students from Virginia Tech's Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences spent two days in Washington, D.C., as part of the department’s Bridge Experience Program.
The team left Blacksburg at six in the morning and spent the next forty-eight hours in three very different rooms: a research agency that works exclusively for Congress, the D.C. office of one of the world's largest crop science companies, and a financial markets conference at Georgetown.
Before anything else, our sincere gratitude to each of our hosts.
The first stop was the Congressional Research Service (CRS) at the Library of Congress. Most people have never heard of CRS, which is somewhat the point — the team works (almost) exclusively for Congress, writes the reports members rely on when drafting legislation, and takes no position on any of it.
Four team members hosted the group: agricultural policy analysts Zach Neuhofer, Ph.D. and Christine Whitt '16, along with Jim Monke, Ph.D., specialist in agricultural policy, and Megan Stubbs, specialist in agricultural conservation and natural resources policy. They used the Farm Bill as the case for preparation and conversation. Amongst many other things, students took away the discipline of informing without advocating.
The whirlwind tour ended at the Financial Markets Quality Conference at Georgetown, where exchange executives, regulators, and investors debated prediction markets, tokenization, and futures contracts on computing power for artificial intelligence.
But how in the world is this related to food and agriculture? Well, financial markets exist to move risk from participants who cannot carry it to those willing to take it on — a tradition built over a century and a half in grain, livestock, energy, currency, and metals contracts and options. The arguments in that room about whether a new event financial contract is legitimate information for the markets or merely a wager are nearly word for word the ones made about grain futures in nineteenth-century Chicago.
The following are reflections from the students in their own words.
What surprised you most?
Going into the visit, I did not know much about the services the Congressional Research Service (CRS) provides. I was surprised by how many different services they offer and thought it was really interesting to learn more about everything they do.
What idea are you still turning over?
One idea I am still thinking about is Bayer’s approach of acquiring businesses with successful models rather than putting additional capital into developing everything internally through research and development. I thought it was interesting how they can integrate these businesses and their ideas into Bayer’s existing systems.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
This trip fits into what I want to do because I am interested in pursuing a career in agricultural finance. Understanding financial markets and policy is important for working in agriculture and finance, so learning about these areas will help me prepare for my desired career.
What surprised you most?
What surprised me the most from the Financial Markets Quality conference was learning about how much the financials markets are connected with regulation and public policy. Before the trip I used to think of the financial markets in relation to prices, trading, and investing. After the trip I was surprised to learn how closely the predictions market professionals work with regulators and government agencies.
What idea are you still turning over?
One idea I am still thinking about that was discussed in the “Market Infrastructure in the Age of Technological Innovation” panel was about how the futures market could not handle instant settlement of trade. I had thought that faster settlements would make markets more efficient. However, the futures markets are already designed to manage risks and instant settlements would create additional challenges that the futures markets would not yet be ready to handle.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
This is connected to what I want to do in the agricultural finance field because the futures markets are a valuable tool to manage price risks. Understanding how these markets could change in the coming years with new technological advancements could change how they will be useful in my future career.
What surprised you most?
What surprised me most was learning about the Congressional Research Service and how multifaceted the job is. It requires strong problem-solving skills, discipline, and the ability to research very specific topics that may not always align with your personal interests. I found it interesting how much responsibility comes with providing research to elected officials and how important it is to approach unfamiliar subjects with an open mind. It seems like a strenuous but very interesting career.
What idea are you still turning over?
The idea that is still lingering in my mind is the possibility of financial markets moving toward 24/7 trading. I found it particularly interesting when someone mentioned that this would only be truly feasible and beneficial if the banking system also operated around the clock. This made me think about how interconnected financial institutions are and how significant such a change could be. I would love to learn more about how this could work in the future and its implications for financial markets.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
The conference connects to my interests in agricultural, energy, and natural resource economics. Financial markets play an important role in these industries, and understanding how they operate is essential. While I have experience with agricultural spreadsheets and financial modeling, seeing how professionals in corporate finance and investing use similar systems in different industries broadened my perspective. I believe this exposure is invaluable as I explore the intersection of finance, agriculture, and energy economics.
What surprised you most?
What surprised me the most was the work from the Congressional Research Service. I was unaware of how much work they do and the strict timelines they have to meet. I thought it was very interesting how much they talked about being non-partisan on every issue.
What idea are you still turning over?
I’m still thinking about new innovations in the Financial Markets world. Platforms like Kalshi allow users to bet on almost anything, at any time. 24/7 trading is also being talked about, and I’m curious how these innovations will play into agricultural markets and trading in the future.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
This experience helped me to learn more about financial markets and how they work. In addition, our visit to Bayer left me feeling inspired about their passion for their business and the history behind it. As I will be going into my family’s production agriculture operation after graduation, the importance of having a passion for what you do and continuing to always keep learning is what I’m taking away from this experience.
What surprised you most?
What surprised me most was the wide variety of backgrounds that people came from that we met with. From political science to engineering, everyone we spoke with, found themselves situated in a position that they felt extremely passionate about. It was inspiring to hear from so many different people and perspectives because it made the whole conversation really well rounded.
What idea are you still turning over?
The idea I keep returning to is how AI came up across the panels and in our conversations with Bayer and CRS. Going in, I thought of AI mostly as a controversial topic, associated with job loss, misinformation, energy use, and questions about who controls the data. What surprised me was that both organizations talked about it with real optimism, and they did so from very different positions. What I'm taking away is that the controversy around AI and the optimism I heard aren't really opposites. The organizations that were most hopeful also seemed to be the ones thinking hardest about how to use it responsibly. That shifted my view from asking whether AI is good or bad for the food system to asking who designs it, who it serves, and how its gains are distributed, which connects directly to the kind of economic and policy questions I want to work on.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
Through my Agri-Food Finance Fellowship at the Kohl Centre, I have built financial models and market analyses for nonprofit food and agriculture enterprises, so I've seen how heavily good decisions depend on good data. Hearing Bayer and CRS talk about AI showed me what that same analytical work could look like at a much larger scale, whether it's predicting yields, targeting aid, or measuring the environmental impact of how land is farmed. I'm still not certain about exactly what I want to do after graduation, but this experience made that feel less intimidating. Everyone we spoke with approached the food system from a different angle, yet they all clearly loved what they do. That showed me I don't need a perfect plan right now. If I follow what I care about most, protecting the environment and using economics to make the case for change, I trust that these opportunities will lead me right where I am supposed to be and I hope to one day talk about my work with the same passion I heard from them.
What surprised you most?
The way people in industry talk about artificial intelligence. It was noticeably different from how we discuss it in academia. The open question for them was who will be able to use these tools well enough to benefit from them, and the working assumption was that people who are not proficient will struggle in the workforce moving forward. What struck me was that this view was not confined to one office or one firm. I heard versions of it across several different settings on the trip where people in the private sector were speaking to their expectations of employees in the future. Hearing it directly from people in industry was useful for my own development, but it also changed how I think about the courses I design. If that is the standard my students will be measured against, I should be deciding now which tools to emphasize and how to help them get comfortable with them. Preparing students for that job market is the point of the job, so this was worth hearing.
What idea are you still turning over?
At the Georgetown conference I kept coming back to two different approaches to building new financial products. One starts with natural buyers and sellers. You identify a real hedging need, build the market around it, and speculators come in afterward to provide liquidity and improve efficiency. The base of the market is a genuine commercial need. Some of the newer innovations in derivatives seem to start somewhere else, with a retail target market and a base that is speculative from the beginning. A lot of the discussion at the conference was about whether those products deliver economic utility that justifies treating them as financial derivatives under CFTC oversight, or whether they are closer to gambling and belong under state regulation. I have not settled on an answer. I am still thinking about whether one approach is actually better than the other, and about where the line sits.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
Most directly, the trip gave me information I can use to refine what I want to do. My research and coursework have centered on financial markets, their participants, and their structure, and on how those markets contribute to the broader economy through risk management and price discovery. The second day at the Financial Markets Quality Conference connected closely to that work. It gave me a better feel for the language around the newer products, the regulatory questions attached to them, and the concerns people have about them.
The first day did something different. Both visits broadened my sense of what is available after graduation, in ways I had not really considered before. At Bayer, we spent a few hours covering a range of topics, and what came through was how wide-reaching and dynamic that kind of role can be. I had not pictured private-sector work as being that varied or that close to the policy conversation. Seeing a company maintain a serious presence in Washington, and hearing how the people there think about the issues in front of them, made an industry path look more interesting than it had before.
The Congressional Research Service made a different impression. Producing objective, nonpartisan analysis that informs policy decisions across party lines, on a daily basis, seems like genuinely worthwhile work. There is something appealing about being useful to both sides of a question without having a stake in the answer. Taken together, the two visits widened my view of where this career could go, on the private side and the public side both.
What surprised you most?
What I was most surprised by, as well as appreciative of, was the range of speakers featured by the Georgetown Conference. The speakers included members of the current administration, a sitting senator, and numerous private industry leaders. The timing made those conversations especially engaging, as the CLARITY Act had failed to advance in the Senate just days before, making questions about digital asset regulation feel immediate. I appreciated hearing how differently policymakers and industry leaders approached the same issues, as well as reflecting on their discussions and the broader issues with fellow attendees between sessions.
What idea are you still turning over?
Finding the balance between cultivating innovation and regulatory responsibility has weighed heavily on my mind since we left the conference. Panel members such as Kalshi board member Quintenz and Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) emphasized the risk that restrictive rules could limit the potential of emerging markets. Offering additional perspectives, panelists Amande Fischer, COO of Better Markets and Terrence Duffy, CEO of CME Group raised questions about where safeguards are needed and whether every new product offers a meaningful public benefit. Prediction markets made that tension especially concrete for me, as they can serve as new ways to forecast events and share information, but markets built around political or pop culture events also raise questions about their value and oversight. I left with a clearer sense of how difficult it is to write rules for a fast-growing industry while its uses and risks are still molding into shape.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
The question of regulatory responsibility connects closely with my interest in agricultural policy, foreign service, and the USDA FAS. Agriculture also depends on innovation, from new production technologies to new ways of financing and trading, while public policy must account for farmers, consumers, and the wider food system. The conference reminded me that good policy requires listening to people with different interests, weighing evidence about who benefits and who bears the risks, and making decisions whose effects may extend beyond the U.S.
What surprised you most?
How much of Bayer's work happens in regulatory offices in addition to labs. I assumed a new seed trait moved from the lab to the field. In fact it waits for approval in every country where that grain might be sold, so a real consideration beyond science is often trade policy.
What idea are you still turning over?
One of our Bayer hosts told us nowadays you don't have a real career without mastering AI. At Bayer it already runs from technical R&D to data analysis and market research. This helped me expand my thinking that AI raises the floor for everyone, and the edge moves to judgment: knowing which question to ask and noticing when the answer is wrong. That still takes deep domain knowledge.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
As I head into the job market, the trip widened what I think that market is. Economists at CRS, Bayer, and Georgetown all do some form of applied economic research, the kind of work my training partly prepares me for, but each role asks something different of them. CRS analysts stay strictly neutral, while a company needs analysis that serves its goals. Working out which of those fits me is now part of the search.
What surprised you most?
A surprise I had during the experience was how hot a topic Kalshi is in the financial markets. During the conference, there was a lot of dialogue on the implications of Kalshi in the financial markets as well as culturally. While I see ads about Kalshi on social media, I never considered what role it served in the financial markets.
What idea are you still turning over?
While visiting the CRS, an important phrase that was mentioned multiple times was “ words matter”. In this role, you are expected to curate research while remaining nonpartisan. The expectation is that you remain impartial and accurate. I carried this throughout the trip and found myself thinking about and how I can utilize this in a future career.
How does this connect to what you want to do?
Many of the conference and trip takeaways were how I can best represent myself and my career. It was a blend of personal takeaways and to pay closer attention to the markets.