Because Chris Cox hasn't said anything about the issue.
They co-authored the bill. They almost certainly had similar aims when doing so.
If there is no indication the other party has any difference in opinion, has not spoken out to disagree with the party mentioned, and there is no real reason to believe there would be a difference in opinion, why should I not be allowed to quote the only explanation from an authoritative party on the matter?
The answer is that that's perfectly allowable and that I am not being dishonest.
They co-authored the bill. They almost certainly had similar aims when doing so.
If there is no indication the other party has any difference in opinion, has not spoken out to disagree with the party mentioned, and there is no real reason to believe there would be a difference in opinion, why should I not be allowed to quote the only explanation from an authoritative party on the matter?
The answer is that that's perfectly allowable and that I am not being dishonest.