TIME: Almanac 1990/1990 Time Magazine Compact Almanac, The (1991)(Time).iso/time/091889/09188900.054

Text File | 1990-09-17 | 11KB | 252 lines

NATION, Page 24

"Silent Sam" Speaks Up

By Michael Riley, Nancy Traver, Sam Pierce


    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.* [*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.] 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.