Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

My name is David Zwiebel. I serve as executive vice president for government and public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, a 79-year-old national Orthodox Jewish movement. I am a rabbi, and an attorney by profession; and I also serve as Agudath Israel’s general counsel.

It is my assigned role here today to speak not so much as a lawyer, but as an executive of a faith-based organization that has had experience in the administration of government-funded social service programs, and that fully supports the expansion of the federal “charitable choice” program. For the past quarter-century or so, Agudath Israel, among its various other activities, has sponsored a variety of social service projects, most of them in New York City, running the gamut from employment training and placement to housing and neighborhood stabilization, from mentoring programs for at-risk youth to visitation programs for homebound and institutionalized seniors. These activities, which have serviced many thousands of needy persons, have beensubsidized through a variety of government grants. In my testimony today, I will draw on several aspects of Agudath Israel’s experience to offer a number of observations concerning the charitable choice initiative currently under consideration.

1. The Motivation of Faith-Inspired Service Providers: When Agudath Israel decided in the mid-‘70’s to go into the area of social services for the needy, we were motivated not merely by some general humanitarian concern, certainly not by some organizational need to establish a new service bureaucracy, but because we saw it as a “mitzvah” – if not quite a religious obligation, then at least a good religious deed. Helping an unemployed breadwinner or a widowed homemaker find a job, bringing cheer and companionship to a lonely senior, working with troubled teens – all of these and many more are part of a Jew’s religious mandate on this earth to perform “tzedakah”, righteous acts of charity; and we at Agudath Israel were determined to do whatever we could to carry out that mandate on a communal basis. While the actual services we have provided over the years have been non-sectarian in nature, they have also been infused with an underlying spirit of holy service – and I daresay that a large measure of our effectiveness is attributable to the religious vision that animates our service.

Which brings me to the first general point I would like to make: When government enlists faith-based groups like ours to help address urgent social needs, it enlists groups that approach this task with a special dedication and devotion that can make a tangible difference in the quality of the service they provide. It would be an unfortunate loss for our caring society were that extra ingredient of motivation, enthusiasm and effectiveness excluded from the government funded service mix.

2. The Grassroots Credibility of Faith-Based Organizations: Agudath Israel’s programs are open to all needy persons, regardless of religious identity or observance. Many of our “clients” are not Jewish, and many of our Jewish clients are not Orthodox or otherwise observant. We don’t ask the people we serve what their faith is; nor do we maintain records of such matters, for they are entirely irrelevant to the services we provide.

At the same time, I would be less than fully candid with this committee were I to suggest that the overall profile of our social service clientele mirrors that of the general society around us. The reality is that a disproportionately high percentage of the people who seek out our social services are our own constituents – needy Orthodox Jews who have known and identified with Agudath Israel for many, many years.

This should hardly come as a surprise, and leads me to the second general point I’d like to make. When public policy makers ponder how most effectively to service needy Americans, a significant factor in the overall equation should be the comfort level that the intended beneficiary will have with the service provider. That, in turn, will often hinge on the credibility the provider enjoys within the community. A social service provider that has its roots in the community, that understands the unique characteristics and sensitivities of the community, that is respected by and enjoys the confidence of the community – that provider will start with a significant leg up in being able effectively to assess and address the needs of the community. And, while there are other types of community-based organizations that can fill a similar role, there is no denying that religious institutions are often the very institutions that retain the greatest level of trust and credibility at the grassroots level where it is needed most in reaching needy Americans.

3. The Spiritual Dimension of Certain Clients’ Needs: Coming back to Agudath Israel’s client base, a good number of the people we serve have had problems in their lives. Some of them have engaged in unhealthy lifestyles and destructive patterns of behavior; some come from dysfunctional family backgrounds; some have experienced emotional trauma and devastation. They come to us because they are determined to turn their lives around, to find new hope, new faith, a new beginning. And, quite frankly, when they do so, some of them have G-d on their minds.

These people choose Agudath Israel precisely because they know the type of organization we are. To be sure, they are in need of the social services we provide, but they also sense that they are in need of something else to put their lives in order, something spiritual – a reconnection with their Maker and with their Jewish faith. And while we are meticulous in ensuring that the social services we provide are entirely non-sectarian, we do try to accommodate those of our clients who are looking for religious counseling – by working with them after hours, by referring them to a rabbi or a Jewish education program, by facilitating their desire to come closer to their faith and their G-d.

Hence my third point: Countless Americans who are in need of social services are looking for something beyond merely material assistance. When they make the decision to turn their lives around, they will often seek out religious institutions to help them find their way back. While government ought not fund sectarian activities, at the same time government ought not exclude from the social service mix the very institutions to which many needy Americans are likely to turn for service precisely because of the added spiritual dimension those institutions are able to offer. So long as no government funds are used for religious activities, so long as no beneficiary is compelled to participate in religious activities, so long as the funded social services are entirely separable from the provider’s religious activities, neither law nor logic can justify the exclusion of faith-based social service providers simply because they also make religious services available to their clients.

4. Respecting the Religious Tenets and Identity of a Faith-Based Provider: In the early 1980’s, New York City Mayor Edward I. Koch promulgated “Executive Order 50,” requiring all entities receiving city funds to pledge nondiscrimination on a variety of bases, including sexual orientation. At that time, Agudath Israel was slated to enter into a number of social service contracts with the city, including contracts that funded after-school activities for youths. We decided, however, that we could not accept the mayor’s conditions; our rabbinic leadership insisted that organizational employees who serve in the positions of role models must embody the core values of traditional Judaism. We sued the mayor, as did the Salvation Army and the New York City Archdiocese, and we ultimately won – proving, I guess, that sometimes you can fight City Hall – but the bottom line is that we were all prepared to give up our city funding had Hizzoner’s executive order been upheld.

There is a lesson to be learned from this incident as well. If government chooses to enlist religious groups to help address the nation’s urgent social needs, for the reasons I have already suggested and others as well, it must do so in a manner that allows a faith-based organization to remain faithful to its base. To insist that a religious charity adopt secular nondiscrimination standards, for example, even where those standards conflict with religious doctrine, or to insist that religious symbols be removed from a faith-based provider’s facilities, is simply a polite way to say that religious charities should not be eligible to receive funds. No self-respecting religious organization would ever trade in its sacred tenets for a pot of government lentils.

It is not my role here today to expound at length on the legal issues surrounding the right of a religious organization that receives government funding to maintain policies and practices that reflect its own religious tenets. Suffice it to note that there is ample authority under federal law that reflects Congress’ longstanding view that receipt of federal funds does not require religious entities to abandon their religious identities.

Consider, for example, the law that excuses a health care facility that receives federal funding from making its facilities available or providing personnel for the performance of any sterilization procedure or abortion, if such activity would be contrary to the facility’s religious beliefs. 42 U.S.C. sec. 300a-7(b). Or consider Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which generally prohibits sex discrimination by schools that receive federal financial assistance, but explicitly exempts “an educational institution which is controlled by a religious organization if the application of this subsection would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.” 20 U.S.C. sec. 1681 (a) (3). Clearly, government itself would not be permitted to discriminate on the basis of sex or restrict sterilization or abortion rights. But, as these two laws demonstrate, government is not thereby precluded from extending financial assistance to an entity whose religious tenets demand such discrimination or restriction – and the entity, in turn, is not required to abandon its faith as a pre-condition to receiving the assistance.

To be sure, there may exist religious organizations whose principles or policies are so far removed from the American mainstream that they ought not be eligible for federal funding under the charitable choice program. Public support should not be extended to any group, including any faith-based group, that preaches racial hatred or religious terrorism, for example. But, as the famous Bob Jones case makes clear, the law is already experienced in drawing the line between, on the one hand, groups whose positions are so repugnant to our shared democratic values as to render them ineligible for public support through tax exemption; and, on the other hand, more mainstream religious bodies whose tenets may diverge from the norms of secular society but are nonetheless deemed charitable entities eligible for public support through tax exemption. Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). That line-drawing exercise, difficult though it may occasionally be, has served our nation well; it can and should be employed in the charitable choice context as well.

I make this point, frankly, with some degree of trepidation. A religious group, or a religious practice, that is considered mainstream today may be considered beyond the American pale tomorrow, as the Supreme Court noted in Bob Jones itself, 461 U.S. at 574. And as our society in general moves toward greater egalitarianism, there is danger – a term I use advisedly – that religious communities that envision different roles for male and female, or that regard certain types of conduct or lifestyle as immoral or sinful, or that embrace any set of values at variance with those of the broader secular society, will no longer be able to participate fully in American life, their beliefs and traditions steamrolled in the noble name of civil rights.

The genius of America has been its ability to strike the appropriate balance between the sometimes competing values of promoting equality and respecting diversity. Insisting that all faith-based providers sacrifice their religious principles and practices as the price they must pay if they wish to service the needy with government funds would upset that delicate balance and do violence to the foundation block of religious freedom upon which our society has been built. That is why Agudath Israel strongly supports the provision in the existing charitable choice laws, and in the proposed expansion of those laws, that allows religious charities to retain their identities and policies. In our view, this must remain an indispensable feature of any such legislation.

Thank you.