The amendments are not evidence about conduct before enactment
What the document says“Nothing in the amendments made by this Act may be construed as evidence that, in applying sections 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) and 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) with respect to conduct occurring before the date of the enactment of this Act,”
The sentence goes on to say that nothing in the amendments may be read as evidence that a fentanyl-related substance, as those amendments define it, is not an analogue of the compound named in the two provisions cited, when those provisions are applied to conduct before the date of enactment. The words closing that sentence are not quoted here because the printer broke one of them across a line, and this site does not quote across a word broken at a line end.
What the document actually says“Nothing in the amendments made by this Act may be construed as evidence that, in applying sections 401(b)(1) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)) and 1010(b) of the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act (21 U.S.C. 960(b)) with respect to conduct occurring before the date of the enactment of this Act,”
This law does not settle how older acts are judged. Two rules in older laws still cover those acts.
The new group starts on the day of signing. This part is about acts before that day. It says the change is not proof either way.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.