But the truth reflects a more complex battle driven by legislative competition, policy differences and the limits of identity politics in a chamber where women’s numbers and power are increasing. The vote to replace the measure offered by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, in favor of a more modest provision pushed by Mr. Levin, the Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, did not break down along gender lines: of the seven women on the committee, three, including a fellow Democrat, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, sided with Mr. Levin. “I think all of us need to acknowledge that this isn’t a gender issue,” said Senator Deb Fischer, Republican of Nebraska, at a recent hearing. Nor was it particularly partisan. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and Senator David Vitter of Louisiana, two of the most conservative Republicans on the committee, sided with Ms. Gillibrand, while seven Democrats and an independent peeled away. Ms. Gillibrand’s measure, which she is likely to revive on the Senate floor this fall, would give military prosecutors rather than commanders the power to decide which sexual assaults to try, with the goal of increasing the number of people who report crimes without fear of retaliation. Mr. Levin’s bill requires a senior military officer to review decisions by commanders who decline to prosecute sexual assault cases. Although his measure would change the current system, it would keep prosecution of such cases within the chain of command, as the military wants. Mr. Cruz did not buy it. “The data indicates that there is persistent reluctance to report sexual assault,” he said. “Senator Gillibrand made an effective case.” Unlike so many Congressional policy battles that end with an empty pot, the search for sexual assault legislation is likely to result in significant policy changes to military laws. All told, more than a dozen sexual assault provisions were approved by the committee this week and are headed for the Senate floor. On Friday, the House passed a defense bill that contained some of the broadest changes to military law intended to curb and more strongly punish sexual assault. The bill would strip commanders of their authority to dismiss a finding by a court-martial, establish minimum sentences for sexual assault convictions, permit victims of sexual assault to apply for a permanent change of station or unit transfer, and ensure that convicted offenders leave the military. Many lawmakers say commanders wield too much power on both the front and back end of prosecutions. A Navy judge ruled this week in a pretrial hearing that two defendants in military sexual assault cases could not be punitively discharged because President Obama, in public remarks, exercised “unlawful command influence” when he said offenders should be “prosecuted, stripped of their positions, court-martialed, fired, dishonorably discharged. Period.” The decision was first reported by Stars and Stripes. “Statements by high officials have always been problematic,” said Eugene R. Fidell, who teachers military justice at Yale Law School. “On the one hand, people do look to them to take a stand on things; on the other hand, we are administrating justice here.” Should Congress pass a measure that would require sexual assault offenders to be dishonorably discharged, it would not necessarily render this type of contention moot, Mr. Fidell said, because “those comments would have a distorting effect on the question of conviction.” The measures in the Senate include a mandatory review of decisions by commanders not to prosecute sexual assault; making retaliation a crime; and subjecting sex offenders to automatic dishonorable discharges. Commanders would also no longer be able to overturn jury convictions unilaterally.
