Technical corrections only. The differences between v5, the enrolled bill, and v6, the public law, are limited to formatting, legislative notes, and the inclusion of the public law number and approval date. No substantive policy changes were made between these versions.
Investing in All of America Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Meuser, Daniel [R-PA-9]
- Committees
- Small Business Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 19, 2026
Bottom line
The Act expands the capacity of Small Business Investment Companies to invest in economically disadvantaged regions and strategically important industries by modifying their leverage limits and providing targeted incentives.
What it actually does
This Act amends the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 to modify the maximum leverage limits for Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs). It introduces an exclusion from leverage calculations for investments made in small businesses located in rural or low-income areas, or those operating in critical technology categories or as small manufacturers. The bill also adjusts the overall dollar caps for leverage available to individual and commonly controlled SBICs, while clarifying the definition of 'private capital'.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that this legislation is crucial for directing much-needed private capital to underserved communities and strategically vital sectors that often struggle to attract traditional investment. They contend it will foster economic growth, create jobs, enhance national security through critical technology development, and strengthen domestic manufacturing by leveraging the proven SBIC program.
Opponents contend
Critics might express concerns that while well-intentioned, increasing the federal government's contingent liability through higher leverage caps and targeted exclusions could expose taxpayers to greater financial risk, especially if investments in these specific categories prove to be inherently riskier. Some may also argue that such targeted incentives could distort market dynamics or lead to an overconcentration of capital in specific areas.
The bill is concise but requires careful reading due to its technical nature and amendments to existing statutes, making it moderately accessible for an informed reader.
Section 2(a) of the Act, amending Section 103(9) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 662(9))
Clarification of 'Private Capital' Definition for SBICs
This provision refines the definition of 'private capital' for Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs). It explicitly excludes funds obtained directly or indirectly from any federal, state, or local government or agency when calculating private capital for leverage approval, with exceptions for certain institutional investors. It also updates the list of institutional investors that can contribute to private capital to include foundations, endowments, or trusts of any college or university.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this clarification ensures that the 'private capital' used to secure federal leverage is genuinely private, reducing the risk of double-counting government funds and maintaining the integrity of the SBIC program's leverage model.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against technical clarifications of definitions unless they have a significant, adverse, and unintended impact on program operations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the need for clear and accurate accounting of private capital with the flexibility for SBICs to raise funds from various institutional sources.
Section 2(b)(1) of the Act, amending Section 303(b)(2)(A) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(A))
Revised Maximum Leverage for Individual SBICs
This provision revises the maximum amount of outstanding leverage an individual Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) can have. It changes the general percentage cap from 300% to 200% of its private capital. Additionally, it sets specific dollar caps: $250,000,000 for companies that make quarterly or semiannual interest payments, and $175,000,000 for any other licensed SBIC.
Section 2(b)(2) of the Act, amending Section 303(b)(2)(B) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(B))
Revised Maximum Leverage for Commonly Controlled SBICs
This provision increases the aggregate maximum leverage for multiple Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) that are commonly controlled. The new cap is set at $475,000,000 for commonly controlled companies that make quarterly or semiannual interest payments, and $350,000,000 for any other commonly controlled companies licensed under section 301(c). This represents an increase from the previous aggregate cap of $350,000,000.
Section 2(b)(3) of the Act, amending Section 303(b)(2)(C) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 683(b)(2)(C))
Leverage Exclusion for Investments in Underserved Areas and Critical Technologies
This central provision allows Small Business Investment Companies (SBICs) to exclude certain investments from their outstanding leverage calculation, effectively increasing their capacity to make these specific types of investments without hitting their overall leverage cap. The excluded investments are those made in small business concerns located in low-income geographic areas or rural areas, small business concerns operating primarily in covered technology categories (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 149(e)), or small manufacturers (as defined in 15 U.S.C. 697(e)(6)). The aggregate amount excluded for a company or companies cannot exceed the lesser of 50 percent of their private capital or $125,000,000, and this exclusion applies only to investments made after the date of enactment.
Allows investments in small businesses operating primarily in a 'covered technology category' to be excluded from SBIC leverage calculations. The specific definition of 'covered technology category' is not provided in the bill text but is referenced from 10 U.S.C. 149(e).
Section 2(b)(3)(B)(v)(II), referencing 'section 149(e) of title 10, United States Code'
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to avoid reprinting lengthy definitions already codified elsewhere, ensuring consistency across federal statutes, particularly regarding national security and technology policy.
Case for: Streamlines legislative drafting and maintains definitional consistency across federal law, especially for strategically important areas like critical technologies, which are often defined by defense or national security statutes.
Case against: Requires external research to fully understand the scope of the bill's impact, potentially obscuring the specific technologies being prioritized and making it harder for a casual reader to assess the bill's full implications.
Estimated impact: Directs significant capital towards a range of technologies deemed critical for national security and economic competitiveness, as defined by the Department of Defense, potentially accelerating innovation and growth in these sectors.