No, she does not 'hint at' much less say that.

If you read her testimony before the senate,  she does say that the developers need to realize that they have fiduciary responsibilities in that they must be acting for the greater good of those who use their code to create and use crypto coins.

To me that is a very valid point and in my opinion the devs behind Bitcoin Core do that.

She says (emphasis mine) In short, it is also a fact that most (but not all) of the folks behind the myriad of altcoins DO NOT feel that they have ANY fiduciary responsibilities and as such act only in their self-interest (can you say shitcoin pump-n-dump schemes?). It is because of those crypto coin developers acting irresponsibly and all too often, fraudulently, that she has concerns which may need to be addressed through legislation.

Overall I found her testimony to be refreshingly fair and neutral, both acknowledging what crypto can bring to the table as a useful currency tool while also being fully aware of possible negative aspects that would be detrimental to its use. Not once did she even hint at the usual 'bad/illegal uses' boogeymen that the media love to jump on for eyeball or click bait. Kudos to her for that!

I can't prove it. But suspect they've put pressure on Elon Musk to lie about bitcoin's carbon footprint.

Programmers in the cryptography sector (encryption) have been targeted by governments of the world for many years. The idea of legislators putting pressure on private citizens, in order to push dubious political agendas may sound outlandish and unrealistic to some. In reality, it could be a completely normalized process. A standard procedure which could have been in place for many years.

Mark Zuckenberg may have had pressure put on him for continuuing to push libracoin despite considerable resistance to it from regulators. Jeff Bezos may have stepped down as amazon CEO after having pressure put on him for many years.

Crypto miners may have been pressured to do strange things that have been documented. Such as filling 1 megabyte bitcoin blocks to 30% or less of full capacity. In order to push the strange agenda behind bigger blocks.

If you were government, you would want the ability to reverse transactions due to fraud.
It could mean that.
Of course, this breaks the point of crypto, which is to have a democratic peer to peer ledger.
And you'd have to have some authority to prove that to (which a government would try to claim).

That sort of thing would cause a fork in the country that tried to enforce that, with that country's fork lowering in value.
Eventually, those people who owned on both forks would move their larger holdings to the stronger peer to peer fork.

You can apply pressure on bitcoin exchanges and websites, but it would only result in forks that all delay the inevitable.

There are certainly plenty of regulations that should be considered. The pump and dump schemes of shitcoins hurt everyone.
There are also more visionary methods that a politician could take to improve the accountability of everyone through crypto -- including themselves.

But what it would mean in reality? That developers must comply with regulations before releasing open-source software? I don't see how this can be enforced, especially since crypto is a global phenomenon that ignores borders. Best they can do is to tell exchanges which coins to list, but we're already in era of decentralized exchanges, so even that won't prevent people from investng in scamcoins.

Not all developers are but Code committers are listed and traceable at present.   

Your definition of legal may be different from the Bankers/Governments and trust me it is an entity that does not care about the regular Joe.

Problem is that this crazy regulators are now going after everything Bitcoin crypto related and they plan to raise $28 billion from crypto after new Congress proposal.
Any software like wallets, hardware wallets, multisig providers, holders and potentially even miners will be affected by new tax regulations!
I see people and business leaving United States in masses because of this, but it's probably going to expand to corrupted construct of European Union and other parts of the world soon, if people don't intervene:
https://www.coindesk.com/new-infrastructure-bill-looks-to-raise-30b-through-crypto-taxes  

Yeah! it should be balanced though, we could not let those who do illegal actions easily hide with those who act righteously. They need to pay for their actions to prevent them from scamming people every day like those fake call centers in India where they are proud to scam people with their so-called tech service. If the senate pays attention to this one, their citizens will not be fallen victim to the foreign scammers anymore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6a0yvRV4pQ&ab_channel=Kitboga

You hit the nail on the head, but I see another issue arising: if they decide to pass legislation concerning code committers, it can very quickly end in a slippery slope problem. Where do you draw the line? For now code committers are protected no matter what. Sure there are bad ones and good ones as is so often the case in life. Some will use Facebook for bad, many for good. Once legislation is passed for code committing, I think it will have a negative impact on programmers as a whole as you never know whether your code in front of a court will be judged as well or ill-intended.