My understanding is that, whenever you do something by unanimous consent, part of what happens is that you are not setting a precedent, so that gets you around that difficulty. I think that in a sense that's a fiction; you actually are setting a precedent to some degree.
I think what would happen is that, if we were to do something that was actually egregious in the eyes of the House, someone could raise it in the House and say, “This represents a separate violation of privilege”, if there was some kind of ongoing problem with privilege that was being held up. Since this was actually Mr. Nater's point of privilege, and the rights therefore.... I realize that he was not the one who was delayed, but it's his point of privilege so he probably could speak to that. What I'm getting at here is that there is an avenue to deal with that, and my suspicion is that we won't have a problem in the House with someone raising that which we can get confirmation on.