Agent considerations
This is written as a courts aff, but there are strong reasons to not specify your agent at all. Or even better, say something like ‘likely implementation would be through the courts but the plan doesn’t require an agent beyond United States federal government and an agent CP is one way the plan could be implemented.’
99% of the solvency advocates for this area of the topic recommend Congress – mainly because a safe harbor provision probably requires legislation. Campbell – the harms author – advocates almost exactly the plan, but she says it should be through legislation. Dong – the first court solvency card – does advocate the Court, but ALSO advocates Congress and thinks Congress is better (because it’s more likely to act, according to Dong). But in reality, there’s no reason the courts couldn’t do the aff – this was a problem created by the courts in the first place. Bernstein advocates the courts for both advantages – and he’s the most important solvency author by far.
The point is, once there’s a court politics DA, the Congress CP becomes a pretty strong argument because most advocates think Congress is better. Court politics DA’s are very bad arguments, but they’re a lot stronger if the CP solves the whole case. So don’t commit. There are some plausible answers to a Congress CP embedded within the 1ac, but fiat probably resolves most of them.