This position is totally at odds with that of many members of the US Supreme Court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textualism
However, my indisputable point remains and always will: the opinion of the lawmaker is not irrelevant. You may be able to point to a person to whom it is not relevant, and you may be able to argue about what relevant means (hint FRCP 401; and “relevance is a low bar”), and you may even dispute whether this interview counts as legislative history, but you will not be able to successfully dispute the relevance of legislative history.