Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 50 - 10.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2013
Inter-Affiliate Swap Clarification Act - Amends the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, to exempt from certain regulatory requirements any swaps and security-based swaps entered into by parties neither of which is a swap dealer or a major swap participant: (1) that is also an insured depository institution, (2) that reports information or prepares financial statements on a consolidated basis, or (3) for which a company affiliated with both parties reports information or prepares financial statements on a consolidated basis.
Requires that such exempted agreements, contracts, or transactions be reported to an appropriate data repository, or, if there is no such repository that would accept them, to: (1) the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the case of exempted swaps, or (2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the case of exempted security-based swaps.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 50 - 10.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Hearings Held by the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises Prior to Referral.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Committee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on General Farm Commodities and Risk Management.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Referred to the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Bill text & related measures
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.677 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.677 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.677 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.677 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.