"During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government."<quoted text>
All the Gramm-Leach-Blily Act did was extend the CRA to the newer mortgage institution that the bill created when it tore down the wall between banks & investment houses.
That tearing down was a major factor in the near financial meltdown, not the expansion of the CRA to these newer mortgage institutions.
This was one of the major flaws in the bill noted by the CRS.
"Crucial to the passing of this Act was an amendment made to the GLB, stating that no merger may go ahead if any of the financial holding institutions, or affiliates thereof, received a "less than satisfactory [sic] rating at its most recent CRA exam", essentially meaning that any merger may only go ahead with the strict approval of the regulatory bodies responsible for the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). This was an issue of hot contention, and the Clinton Administration stressed that it "would veto any legislation that would scale back minority-lending requirements." "
AND here is the CRA amendment that Carol mentioned. She wasn't lying. The Bill made the regulatory body of the CRA a partner in deciding if banks could expand. Clinton himself said he would veto the bill if these low income loans were not made.
Go apologize to Carol