Silent Sam Speaks Up

In his first major interview since the HUD scandal came to light, Samuel Pierce met last week with TIME correspondents Michael Riley and Nancy Traver. At his request, 13 questions to be asked were sent to Pierce in writing beforehand. During the four-hour discussion, he frequently read from handwritten notes. Excerpts:

Q. Were you a hands-off manager, ineffective and uninterested in housing?

A. Such characterizations are lopsided. They disregard the assignment President Reagan gave me — to reduce the size and the cost of Government while helping the most needy — and they bypass my achievements. When I became Secretary, HUD’s assisted-housing debt was expected to reach $250 billion by 1983. We stopped that at $244 billion and turned it downward to about $200 billion by the time I left office. But we were able to do more with less. We substantially increased the amount of housing for the needy.

Q. What about the $2 billion to $4 billion in losses due to the HUD scandal?

A. I don’t condone any losses. There was no idea of “Let’s just cut the federal deficit to hurt the poor.” At HUD we were trying to do our part to reduce that deficit and avoid the possibility of trouble in the economy.

Q. How did people get the opposite impression?

A. Oh, man, Washington. I don’t know. It starts because some people in Washington don’t like what you’re doing. And there were Congressmen that didn’t like the approach I was trying to take. And there were people — not just in Congress, but developers and builders and so forth — who wanted to keep programs that I wanted to get rid of because I thought they were wasteful. I think about the names I’ve been called in this town. I’ve been called Stepin Fetchit, I’ve been called Silent Sam, Mr. Mayor.* I’ve been called Svengali. It shows what people will do. To be popular, you must have a lot of programs, a lot of money for everybody, including the builders and developers and consultants.

Q. Were HUD contracts awarded on the basis of political influence?

A. Republicans and Democrats, former HUD officials, Congressmen, Governors, mayors and many others — literally thousands of people — communicated with me about their requests for housing under a variety of HUD programs. My general operating procedure was to send each request to the appropriate staff at HUD with instructions to consider it carefully, and if the request met the necessary requirements, grant it; if not, deny it. No request was to be given any special advantage because it was submitted by a Republican or was in some way associated with a Republican. My decisions were based on facts, law and logic, not on political party.

Q. So if something came across your desk and you thought it merited attention, you’d write a note saying, essentially . . .

A. Well, to consider it carefully.

Q. Isn’t it possible that someone at the staff level would see that and would think, “Aha, the boss wants me to . . .”

A. No. Of course not. A number of ((petitioners)) didn’t get what they were asking for.

Q. But some had pretty good batting averages.

A. Some did; some didn’t. If I got a letter from a fellow and I said, “Gee, he’s a nice guy. Give him the funds,” do you know what a terrible mess you could make? These things are so complex. They have to be looked into, studied and everything else to come out with an answer. I didn’t stop and study each of these. I couldn’t. There were thousands coming in.

Q. Did you exercise adequate oversight of the Section 8 moderate- rehabilitation process?

A. That program was under the control and supervision of the Assistant Secretary of Housing. But when the funding became discretionary in 1984, in order that authority would not be solely in the hands of an Assistant Secretary, a committee was set up consisting of the Under Secretary, the Assistant Secretary and the executive assistant to the Secretary. With hindsight, I would have imposed tighter controls on the committee’s discretion.

Q. Was there political favoritism?

A. That’s a decision that will be made by the public and Congress, hopefully based on the facts.

Q. But weren’t you responsible?

A. I was responsible for the committee, and I said what I should have done. But these things have always been a problem at HUD because of the way many of the laws have been written and the amounts of money involved: people came in with the developers, with their consultants, with so forth and so on, and they steered the program. This is not new. Man, it’s gone this way for years.

Q. James Watt, for instance, called you.

A. So what? He called me, and I turned him over to the housing people. I didn’t say, “James Watt, you’ve got it.” No way.

Q. Is there an appearance of impropriety when ex-HUD officials form private businesses and then make money through HUD?

A. That’s where Congress comes in. They should pass laws to change this if they think it’s wrong.

Q. But the committee that made the decisions worked for you.

A. Everybody worked for me. How many people? Good Lord, come on! These people are high-ranking officials. They have to be people who can accept their responsibilities. They must use their discretion. I can’t go around and check everybody. They’re not children.

Q. Yet one of the main criticisms is that so many of these people were young and had no housing experience.

A. The only one on that committee who didn’t have any kind of experience before she got to HUD was Deborah Dean. Dean worked like hell on learning the programs at HUD. She made it her business.

Q. Did your staff serve you well by favoring Washington insiders and excluding arguably more deserving projects?

A. I believe that the vast majority of HUD’s employees served me well. But there were rotten apples in and out of the HUD barrel. During my administration there were over 2,300 convictions of persons and firms doing business with HUD.

Q. Did Deborah Dean abuse her power?

A. I’m not going to go into these people. Am I happy with what they did? No, I’m not happy. But I’m not going to sit here and say they were at fault.

Q. Dean said mod rehab was a political program, and they ran it in a political way.

A. When I saw that, I almost went through the roof. It was not run as a political program.

Q. How do you account for the loss of up to $100 million in taxpayers’ money to private escrow agents who allegedly stole foreclosure funds?

A. If someone’s a crook, there would always be the chance that funds would be stolen. HUD’s staff was reduced too much. Had there been more auditors and others checking on foreclosures funds of private escrow agents, it would have decreased the chances of money being stolen or lost.

Q. HUD Inspector General Paul Adams said he repeatedly warned top HUD officials, including you, that there was not proper control over money in HUD foreclosure sales. He also said that when he briefed you last year about his internal investigation of the mod-rehab program, you offered little encouragement.

A. My door was always open to him. I always carefully considered and generally acted promptly on his recommendations. Most of the time I followed his advice completely. Sometimes I partially followed it. Occasionally I did not follow it.

Q. Did the Reagan White House use HUD as a dumping ground for political appointees?

A. No. Those who were referred would generally be young, highly intelligent and very ambitious. All were not accepted, but the vast majority of those accepted did excellent work.

Q. HUD reportedly received calls from the White House, trying to influence the dispersion of urban development action grants. Did that trouble you?

A. I remember all kinds of people, not just Republicans — Democrats, friends, others — that would talk to me about a UDAG. The first thing I’d tell them is, “Look, these are decided on a formula basis. I can’t guarantee how it’s going to come out.” However, because of the mod-rehab program’s discretionary nature, there was a possibility of someone personally influencing a decision.

I’m sorry it happened, but I can understand it. You can play games with that. But you’re not supposed to be playing games with the others — not unless you’re absolutely crooked.

Q. Did you have adequate access to President Reagan?

A. I was able to meet with him or talk with him on the telephone whenever the need arose. In addition to that, I saw him regularly at Cabinet meetings.

Q. Did you watch TV in your office?

A. If I ate alone in my office, I would look at some routine papers and sometimes turn on the TV set during my one-hour lunch. Mostly I’d watch All My Children, sometimes something else. Occasionally I would look at some important news events on TV.

Q. Did you adequately address the problem of housing the nation’s low-income and homeless people?

A. There was a substantial increase in housing for the poor. The people at HUD also spend a substantial amount of time, money and energy on the homeless problem.

Q. You were the highest-ranking black official in an Administration accused of being largely unresponsive to the problems and concerns of blacks and other minorities.

A. I take substantial pride in what HUD and I did for blacks and other minorities. Among other things, after eight years of hard work, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 was passed. Civil rights activists hailed it as the most important civil rights legislation in 20 years. I am just as proud of my role within the Cabinet to maintain a strong federal affirmative-action program and to secure an extension of the Voting Rights Act and to help the President resolve the tax-exempt status of Bob Jones University.

Q. You talked about “playing the game,” about the way Washington works. What do you mean by that?

A. Washington is a power-hungry place. It has nothing to do with somebody getting money. It has to do with wanting to feel strong. That’s when you reach the pinnacle in Washington.

Q. One of the speculations about Sam Pierce has always been that what he would like most of all is a Supreme Court appointment.

A. To be frank about it, I’d want to go to the Supreme Court — if I were going to go to any court.

Q. Did you ask for the job?

A. No. Oh, no. You don’t ask to be on the Supreme Court.

Q. Does it sadden you that what has happened in the past five months might have irrevocably tainted your chances?

A. I don’t worry about that, but it does sadden me. The whole thing is a mess. Sad, that’s what it is. Forget the Supreme Court or anything else.

FOOTNOTE: *Ronald Reagan called Pierce Mr. Mayor when the President failed to recognize his Housing Secretary at a reception in June 1981, five months after Pierce had been appointed.