During debate on the State Department authorization bill, Congressman King (R-IA) proposed an amendment which would have imposed a cap on U.S. assistance to the United Nations. The purpose of his amendment, King argued, was to insure that the U.S. did not pay any more money to the United Nations than did other countries. In 2003, contributions made by the United States to the United Nations comprised twenty-two percent of the U.N.'s budget; had King's amendment passed, the proportion of U.S. funding for the U.N. would have fallen to six percent. In the view of Progressives, King's amendment to cut U.S. assistance to the U.N. would have undermined the standing of the United States in the international community. Progressives argued that the United States-the world's most wealthy country (at least in terms of Gross Domestic Product)-had an important financial obligation to insure adequate funding for the United Nations, an organization which conducts and coordinates an extensive array of humanitarian aid missions. Progressives also viewed King's amendment as an unwarranted unilateral action by the U.S.; any funding inequalities perceived by King and others, they argued, should be addressed within the United Nations. Progressives voted against King's amendment and, with the support of fifty Republicans, the measure was rejected 187-237.