1. Short title This Act may be cited as the Protecting Consumers’ Access to Credit Act of 2017 . 2. Findings Congress finds that— (1) the contractual doctrine of valid-when-made provides, when applied to lending agreements, that a loan that is valid at inception cannot become usurious upon the subsequent sale or transfer of the loan to another person; (2) this important and longstanding principle derives from the common law and its application has been a cornerstone of United States banking law for nearly 200 years, as provided in the case of Nichols v. Fearson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 103, 106 (1833), in which the Supreme Court of the United States famously declared: “Yet the rule of law is everywhere acknowledged, that a contract free from usury in its inception, shall not be invalidated by any subsequent usurious transactions upon it.”; (3) in 2016, the Solicitor General of the United States, in consultation with all Federal banking regulators, filed an amicus brief in the case of Midland Funding, LLC v. Madden, 136 S. Ct. 2505 (2016) (mem.), denying cert. to 786 F.3d 246, (2d Cir. 2015), that described the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in that case as incorrect with an analysis reflect[ing] a misunderstanding of section 85 of the National Bank Act and precedent of the Supreme Court of the United States because the analysis contradicted the contractual doctrine of valid-when-made; (4) the valid-when-made doctrine, by bringing certainty to the legal treatment of all valid loans that are transferred, greatly enhances liquidity in the credit markets by widening the potential pool of loan buyers and reducing the cost of credit to borrowers at the time of origination; (5) a joint academic study by professors at Stanford, Fordham, and Columbia Universities concluded that the Madden v. Midland decision has already disproportionately affected low- and moderate-income individuals in the United States with lower FICO scores