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.
I disagree. Contrary arguments frame the intent and context of the debate and illustrate the determining points of choice. I'll remember your opinion next time the SCOTUS cites the Federalist Papers or Farrand's notes on interpreting the Constitution. Really, opinion has no place in the law. It's only because legislators so far exceed their Constitutionally limited powers that such complexity as supposedly necessitates findings becomes commonplace.
Consider that markets could entirely replace many of our regulatory agencies, all too many of which are unconstitutional in their scope and authority.