Taking a page from Missouri's former pro-hunger state legislator, Rep. Cynthia Davis of O'Fallon, Missouri, Congress is considering a bill that would result in thousands fewer poor kids being eligible to receive free or reduced-price meals at school. The cherry on this sundae is that the meals still provided would no longer be as healthy, either.

The bill, HR 5003, carries the Orwellian title "Improving Child Nutrition and Education Act of 2016." It would accomplish the opposite of what its name suggests, and would roll back years of progress in providing needy children with access to nutritious meals.

We invoke Davis' name for the notoriety she acquired by denouncing federally funded summer feeding programs for kids, writing in a 2009 newsletter that "hunger can be a positive motivator." Davis is running against incumbent U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer, R-St. Elizabeth, in the Aug. 2 Republican congressional primary.

The child nutrition bill's sponsor, Rep. Todd Rokita, R-Ind., says it will save money and give schools more flexibility to meet nutritional standards. Supporters estimate the changes would save about $1 billion over 10 years, and say the money would be used for other nutritional programs for children.

They also say the menu changes mean kids would be offered food they like, instead of what experts think they should eat, as part of a nutritious diet. Instead of fresh fruits and vegetables, it would give schools the opportunity to substitute chips, sugary fruit snacks and trail mix.

The bill would raise the poverty threshold for schools seeking funding for free and reduced-price meals. Currently, at least 40 percent of the student population must meet federal poverty qualifications for the school to receive meal aid. The bill would raise it to 60 percent, potentially eliminating 7,000 of the 18,000 schools that are now able to provide students with free and low-cost nutritious meals.

Another 11,000 schools in high-poverty communities that are now eligible, but not yet accessing the program would lose their option to participate.

There can be no good outcomes by starving kids. In a nation where 20 percent of children live in poverty and more than 15 million don't know where their next meal is coming from, the federally funded breakfast and lunch programs provide an essential safety net.

Hungry kids have more health problems, learning difficulties, and emotional and behavioral challenges. Davis said that hunger can be a positive motivator. But it can also destroy a life. She said hungry people can go to work. But 6-year-old starving kids aren't in demand in any U.S. workplace we know of.

There's no excuse for the most advanced nation on Earth to allow children to go hungry. There is no reason to water down nutrition standards for free and reduced-price meals for kids. Missouri's congressional delegation should vote down this bill in a hurry.

REPRINTED FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH