It is not possible to comment meaningfully on the language discussed without more context, including a description of the bill to which it was to be attached. "Sense of the Senate" type language can be harmless fluff, or it can be potentially important in the legislative history consulted by the courts as they interpret law.
You can no more tell me the significance of that language without that context than you could tell me, without context, the implications of "int i; i = 0;" for a program's execution.
If you want to refute the OP assertion that Biden's proposal actually mattered, you will have to be considerably more thorough than you have been.
Your reliance on your readers to construct your argument for you strongly suggests to me that there isn't much argument there. Because its an exceptional reader who has time for such research -- if the point where there to be made, you'd be more convincing simply making it yourself.
I know zero about Joe Biden's position on crypto. But the style of this argument looks to me very much like FUD.
Just read the rest of my comments. They directly address your point. Not wanting to repeat things I've already written in this thread does not constitute avoidance of argument.
You can no more tell me the significance of that language without that context than you could tell me, without context, the implications of "int i; i = 0;" for a program's execution.
If you want to refute the OP assertion that Biden's proposal actually mattered, you will have to be considerably more thorough than you have been.