Key Takeaways From New York’s 4th Congressional District Debate

The U.S. Capitol building in Washington on Sept. 9, 2024. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

Rep. Anthony D'Esposito (R-N.Y.) and Democrat Laura Gillen squared off in an Oct. 15 debate in a congressional district that could determine which party wins control of the House of Representatives on Nov. 5.

D'Esposito, a former New York Police officer, has represented New York’s Fourth Congressional District since Jan. 3, 2023. Gillen was Hempstead Town Supervisor.

They are set for a rematch of 2022, when D'Esposito won with 51.8 percent of the vote, flipping the district, which helped give the GOP control of the House. President Joe Biden won the district by 14 percentage points in 2020.

Below are takeaways from the debate, hosted by local media outlet News 12.

Controversies

D'Esposito and Gillen answered questions about the controversies surrounding them.

D'Esposito has come under fire for reportedly hiring close contacts, including his daughter, to work in his district office on taxpayer funds.

He has denied the allegations and said that his hiring practices are “above board” and that “there was absolutely zero ethics violated” in any of his decisions.

Gillen rebuffed allegations that she awarded a $1.5 billion contract to a donor to renovate Nassau Coliseum, calling it “a ridiculous, baseless attack” and “smoke and mirrors.” She said that contract was awarded by the Nassau County Legislature, which was controlled by the GOP.

She didn’t address allegations related to paying contractors tied to her husband and hiring close contacts to serve in her office.

Anti-Semitism

While D'Esposito and Gillen disagreed throughout the debate, one issue on which there was consensus was on combating anti-Semitism in the aftermath of Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

A constituent who asked the question cited an anti-Semitic incident, which involved someone shouting “Heil Hitler” as people were leaving a synagogue in West Hempstead on Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year.

D'Esposito cited his work on the issue, including sitting on the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council, which he said allowed him “to bring resources to combat anti-Semitism into communities, not only ... on Long Island, but across the United States.”

He also said he sits on the bipartisan working group that includes members of Congress and Israel’s Knesset. He also talked about putting forth measures on the House floor, including a resolution condemning the phrase “from the river to the sea,” which has been criticized for being anti-Semitic.

D'Esposito touted bringing in almost $10 million to his district to help law enforcement be educated on anti-Semitism and protect Jewish institutions.

Gillen called for pressuring university presidents to address the issue and threatening to strip federal funding from schools that fail to combat the problem. She also said that more funding should be allocated to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights so they can investigate schools’ handling of the issue.

She also said funding for the FBI should not be cut.

Gillen also said violent rhetoric on social media needs to be confronted. She has also released an action plan to combat anti-Semitism that echoes what she said in the debate.

Abortion

The candidates also agreed somewhat on the issue of abortion.

D'Esposito noted his opposition to a federal abortion ban and to banning the abortion drug mifepristone. He also cited his sponsorship of bills to protect access to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and give tax credits to those who use the treatment.

Gillen recalled having an abortion 19 years ago when her fetus did not have a heartbeat and the pregnancy was life-threatening. She also called for ensuring access to IVF.

“We must protect reproductive freedom in this country,” she said. “It is not a state’s right. It’s a human right.”

D'Esposito refuted an ad from Gillen that decried legislation he supported to criminalize doctors who perform an abortion.

He said the West Hempstead law requires doctors to save the life of a baby just born and that if they do not, they would be criminally charged.