I'm suspecting that it's not a black/white answer and I'd like to read some reputable opinions on the subject. Blurbs in wikipedia (jah, should always be suspect) on FHEFSSA:

"required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing"

"mandates that HUD set specific goals for the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, with regard to low income and underserved housing areas".

At first glance, my initial take on this is that devoting a percentage of lending implies that even if they can't find sufficient lower-strata lendees they still have to fill the percentage, which imply that they're forced to give risky loans. But of course, that's probably just ignorance on my part. Bah. Now I have to dig deeper into all that lawyer mumbo-jumbo.

It seems that the FHEFSSA is the issue here more than the CRA, though, right? I still haven't positively confirmed this but it looks as though the CRA doesn't force it:

"The Act requires the appropriate federal financial supervisory agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered, consistent with safe and sound operation"