I knew that and was expecting this. "Intent" is also in the Congressional Record, where the debate does more to define intent than such a section ever could. It doesn't have to be in the law and shouldn't.
I care not a whit what is usual or customary among the gang of posturing amateurs we call Congress. Laws should be simple, changes should be rare and few. The easy way to accomplish that is to stay within the confines of the Constitution. Were that the case they might even read the drafts before they vote.
I would have to disagree with your assessment that the record of the debate maintained in the Congressional Record does more to define intent than the findings portion of a bill.
As an example consider that you and I are members of Congress. You and everybody except me agree that a certain bill is appropriate and support it. You are going to win, the vote of course, but we both have our chance on the floor to make our positions known. That debate is archived in the Congressional Record.
Your bill becomes law and is implemented. Somebody sues. The Congressional record is checked - should our debate which was archived and pitted only you and I be considered to relay legislative intent?
Or, should more weight be given to the findings contained in a bill that passed with only one dissenting vote?
In my opinion, the findings of a bill that meets a sucessful vote, whether all against one, or one over the majority needed, are the important part.
The comments of one should be irrelevant to the interpretation of a law that has passed a vote.