United Nations (U.N.) reform is an ongoing policy issue for the United States, and may continue to be an area of focus during the 114 th Congress. As the single largest financial contributor to the U.N. system, the U.S. government has an interest in ensuring the United Nations operates as efficiently and effectively as possible. Congress has the responsibility to appropriate U.S. funds to the United Nations and can impose conditions on payments. On several occasions, it has sought to link U.S. funding of the United Nations to specific reform benchmarks. Since the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, U.N. member states and past secretaries-general have repeatedly attempted to reform the organization. These reform efforts tend to be cyclical, with member states considering waves of new reform proposals every 5 to 10 years. The reform attempts are often initiated by a member state, groups of member states, and/or the current Secretary-General. They have generally focused on three areas of concern: (1) perceived inefficiencies and lack of accountability in the U.N. Secretariat; (2) duplication and redundancy of U.N. mandates, missions, and/or programs; and (3) evidence of fraud, waste, abuse, and/or mismanagement of U.N. resources. Proposed reforms often reflect the political, economic, and cultural climate of the time. In the 1950s and 1960s, member states focused on increasing membership on the U.N. Security Council and the U.N. Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) to account for growing U.N. membership. In the 1970s, as the economic and political gap between developed and developing countries grew more pronounced, the General Assembly examined structural changes that would help the United Nations address "problems of international economic co-operation." Due in part to pressure from the United States, U.N. reform initiatives in the 1980s and early 1990s addressed financial and structural issues, with a particular focus on decision-making processes related to the U.N. regular budget, which funds core U.N. activities. Since the early 2000s, reform efforts have been driven by a combination of U.N. budgetary and financial challenges, controversy over mismanagement of the Iraq Oil-For-Food Program, perceived ineffectiveness of U.N. human rights mechanisms, and allegations of sexual abuse committed by U.N. staff and peacekeepers, among other issues. This report examines reform priorities from the perspective of several key actors, including Members of Congress, the Obama Administration, selected member states, the U.N. Secretary-General, and a cross-section of groups tasked with addressing U.N. reform during the past 10 to 15 years. It also discusses congressional actions related to U.N. reform and mechanisms for implementing reform, as well as possible challenges facing U.S. policymakers as they consider existing and future U.N. reform efforts. In 2005, U.N. reform efforts gained momentum as heads of state and government met for a World Summit at U.N. Headquarters in New York. The Summit Outcome Document, which was adopted by consensus, laid the foundation for a series of reforms that included improving U.N. management structures; strengthening the Security Council (see text box ); enhancing U.N. system coordination and coherence; and creating a new Human Rights Council (see text box ). Since the World Summit, U.N. member states have worked toward implementing these reform initiatives with varied results. Some reforms are stalled or have not been addressed, while others are underway or completed. Selected reform activities include the following: The long-term impact of these and other recent activities remains to be seen. The overall success of these efforts—and any future reform efforts—depends on how effectively the United Nations and its member countries manage and follow through on the implementation of these reforms and how, if at all, they work to correct possible weak nesses or issues that may arise over time. Generally, Congress supports the United Nations and its overall mission. It authorizes and appropriates U.S. funds to the organization each year and often uses U.N. mechanisms to further U.S. foreign policy objectives. Congress can also be critical of the United Nations—especially when some Members believe that it may not be running as effectively as it could be. In such instances, Congress may use a wide range of legislative tools to influence and direct U.S. policy at the United Nations. Placing financial conditions or limits on U.S. funding to the United Nations, described in more detail below, is a common congressional approach to U.N reform. Other tools may include considering "sense of the Congress" resolutions; holding hearings to investigate U.N. programs or oversee Administration policies; and considering U.S. nominations for U.N. posts. In the past, Congress has used its authority to limit U.S. funds to the United Nations as a mechanism for influencing U.N. policy. In some cases, Congress withheld a proportionate share of funding for U.N. programs and policies of which it did not approve. It has, for instance, withheld funds from regular budget programs, including the U.N. Special Unit on Palestinian Rights and the Preparatory Commission for the Law of the Sea. Currently, the only proportionate U.S. withholding from the regular budget is for some activities and programs related to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) or entities associated with it. Since FY2012, the United States withheld funding from the U.N. Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) due to member states' October 2011 decision to admit "Palestine" as a member (see text box ). The overall impact of withholding a proportionate share of assessed payments depends on the origin of the program's funding. If a program is funded by the U.N. regular budget and the United States withholds a proportionate share of its normal contributions, the cost of the program will most likely be covered by surplus regular budget funds. Some U.N. programs are funded from several budgets that may include the U.N. regular budget, specialized agency budgets, and separate conference and administrative budgets. Because of this, it may be more difficult for U.S. proportionate withholdings to have a significant impact because the program's funding comes from several sources. In such cases, a U.S. withholding would have little or no immediate impact on the program's operation or funding levels. If the United States withholds funds from a program funded primarily by member state contributions, however, the impact of the United States withholding or suspending contributions could be greater. In addition to withholding a proportionate share of U.S. funding, Congress may consider enacting legislation decreasing or increasing U.S. assessment levels or linking payment of U.S. arrears to policies it favors. In October 1993, for example, Congress directed that the U.S. payments of peacekeeping assessments be capped at 25% (lower than the assessment level set by the United Nations). Congress has also used this strategy to further its U.N. reform policies. Enacted legislation such as the Helms-Biden Agreement linked U.S. assessment levels and the payment of U.S. arrears to reform benchmarks (see Appendix A for more information on legislation). As noted in the previous text box , some current Members of Congress have proposed shifting U.S. funding from assessed to voluntary contributions. Opponents of linking U.S. funding to progress on U.N. reform are concerned that doing so may weaken U.S. influence at the United Nations, thereby undercutting the United States' ability to conduct diplomacy and make foreign policy decisions. Some argue that withholding U.S. assessed payments to the United Nations infringes on U.S. treaty obligations and alienates other U.N. member states. Opponents also note that withholding U.S. funds could have an impact on diplomatic relations outside of the U.N. system. Additionally, some contend that U.N. reform legislation proposals may be unrealistic because the scope and depth of reforms required by the legislation cannot be adequately achieved in the proposed time frames. Supporters of linking U.S. funding to specific reforms argue that the United States should use its position as the largest U.N. financial contributor to push for the implementation of policies that lead to comprehensive reform. They note that despite diplomatic and political pressures from many countries, the United Nations has been slow to implement substantive reform. Advocates also argue that some previously implemented reforms have proved to be ineffective. They believe that tying U.S. funding to U.N. reform may motivate countries to find common ground on divisive issues. They also emphasize that past legislation that threatened to cut off U.S. funding of the United Nations (such as the Kassebaum-Solomon amendment, described in Appendix A ) was effective, and led to substantive changes in U.N. operations and programs. Congress's influence over U.S. funding of the United Nations is a powerful tool for furthering U.S. reform policy at the United Nations. However, there may be other strategies for Congress to consider when advocating its reform agenda. These strategies have been widely used by many past and current Members of Congress and Administrations, and include, but are not limited to: Resolutions —Members of Congress may propose and/or enact simple or concurrent resolutions expressing an opinion, fact, or principle in one or both chambers of Congress. Some Members have used these resolutions to voice an opinion about U.S. policy in the United Nations/or the United Nations itself. Working with the U.N. Secretary-General —Some previous and current Members of Congress and Administrations have worked to earn the support of U.N. secretaries-general to help advocate their positions.