Carol Miller's House Amendment Changes Four 2025 Sale Bands

The House Clerk's amended PTR identifies Carol D. Miller, West Virginia's 1st District, and marks all four rows as Amended. The rows are Pfizer common stock (PFE), Quest Diagnostics common stock (DGX), Target common stock (TGT), and U.S. Bancorp common stock (USB). The form marks the owner as SP and reports March 10, 2025 as the transaction date and April 11, 2025 as the notification date for each row.

The original House PTR #20029135 was a 14-row report signed April 11, 2025. It included the same four sales alongside nine purchases and one additional sale of United Parcel Service (UPS). The four rows repeated in the amendment were therefore already part of the public record; the amendment should be read as a later version of selected rows, not as a new four-trade portfolio.

The amendment also identifies a United Bank Brokerage Account as the subholding for the four rows. The original report used different account text on some of the same rows, which makes the source documents—not an isolated normalized row—the right place to resolve the record's current ownership and account context.

Each of the four amended rows is in the $15,001-$50,000 band. The corresponding rows in the April 2025 original are each in the $1,001-$15,000 band. The public record therefore changes the disclosed interval for each sale, but it does not disclose a transaction price, share count, or exact proceeds.

If the four bands are mechanically added, the original version describes a combined interval of $4,004-$60,000 and the amended version describes $60,004-$200,000. Those sums are ranges built from four separate reporting bands; they are not an exact value, a realized return, or proof that every sale reached the top of its band.

The amendment does not state why the ranges changed. It could reflect a correction to the original report or a revised account record, but the official PDF does not provide a narrative explanation. The supportable fact is the before-and-after band comparison.

The original PTR was signed and made public on April 11, 2025, 32 calendar days after the March 10 transaction date. Its displayed notification date is also April 11, 2025. The April report—not the August 2026 amendment—is the relevant first-public disclosure date for these four sales.

The House Committee on Ethics says covered transactions are due by the earlier of 30 days after the filer is made aware of the transaction or 45 days after the transaction. On the dates printed in the original report, the 32-day transaction-to-filing interval is within the 45-day outer limit, and the notification date appears on the original filing itself.

That timing does not establish anything about why the amount band or account text later changed. It does establish why the amendment should not be described as the first disclosure or as four trades that waited 521 days to be reported.

Congressional Trader's normalized production feed contains four rows under raw_source house-ptr-2026-20033779. Because those rows use the amendment's August 13, 2026 filing date, the feed calculates a 521-day transaction-to-filing interval from March 10, 2025. That is a valid arithmetic comparison to the amendment date, but it is not the delay to first public disclosure.

The original source has a separate raw_source, house-ptr-2025-20029135, with 14 normalized rows and a filing date of April 11, 2025. The four matching original rows show the lower band and a 32-day interval. A tracker that sorts only by the latest source can therefore make an old, already-public sale look newly disclosed and unusually late.

The practical rule is to preserve both source versions while treating the amendment as the current description of the affected rows. For delay analysis, use the original filing date when asking when the transaction first became public; for amount analysis, show that the later official version changed the band.

The official amended PDF marks all four rows SP. In the checked production rows, DGX and USB carry SP in the normalized owner field, while PFE and TGT have a blank owner value. That is a parser coverage difference, not a reason to treat the official owner field as uncertain.

The same source boundary appears in the account context. The House document supplies the full asset, owner, subholding, transaction type, amount band, transaction date, notification date, and filing status together. The ticker feed is useful for discovery and alerts, but the PDF is authoritative when the normalized fields do not preserve all of that context.

This distinction also prevents an inaccurate comparison with the original report. The original source's normalized owner field is blank for all 14 rows, even though the PDF contains subholding information on many rows. The normalized table should not be treated as a replacement for the source document when an amendment changes metadata.

The amendment establishes that four March 10, 2025 sales are now reported in a higher disclosure band and that the House document presents them as spouse-owned amended rows. It does not identify the exact value of any sale, explain the reason for the revised band, or state whether the amendment was prompted by the filer, a financial institution, or a House review.

The record also does not establish insider trading, improper influence, an ethics violation, intent, or a penalty. A material change to a disclosure range is important for accurate public data, but a correction alone is not evidence of wrongdoing.

For researchers, the narrow conclusion is clear: compare an amendment with the earliest official version before labeling a disclosure late, counting new trades, or aggregating the revised ranges into a false-precision portfolio total.