The United States is the world's leading provider of food aid, but our policies to date have not reduced global hunger. The Farm Bill, which survived a presidential veto, includes several measures that head in the right direction, but it is not yet enough.

For one, Congress has taken a significant step to stem world hunger by authorizing a pilot program to buy some food in developing countries. CARE and others —- including Sens. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the Bush administration and food aid experts —- recommended changes in the law to promote local purchase.

Buying food close to where people need it makes sense. It is a more effective use of our tax dollars because it reaches people more quickly and goes a long way toward helping poor farmers become self-sufficient. It does not hurt small U.S. farmers, either. Rather, it is the large agricultural conglomerates, commodity groups and shippers that profit from our government's current food aid program.

While we applaud the pilot project, we recognize that it falls short of the enormous need. It sets aside only $60 million over four years —- and has little flexibility. The United States stands alone among major donors in its unwillingness to embrace the need for more local purchases.

Even before the surge in food and fuel prices, approximately 850 million people went hungry every day. U.S. assistance will buy less food at the same time that staples like rice and wheat are being priced out of the poor's reach. There is no social safety net for the billion people living on less than a dollar a day, much less the 162 million who survive on 50 cents or less —- the young, old, disabled, women and other marginalized groups.

The global food crisis makes it even more imperative that we stretch U.S. food aid dollars. Congress should eliminate the provision requiring U.S. food assistance to be shipped on vessels registered in the U.S. As much as 65 percent of money allocated for food aid is spent on transportation and administrative costs, according to the Government Accountability Office.

We also urge Congress to support a more robust local and regional purchase option in the supplemental appropriations bill. This would allow humanitarian agencies to respond to emergencies more quickly and efficiently, while supporting local farming, access to markets and economic development.

However, we must do more than provide a quick fix. Appropriating tax dollars without finding long-term ways to end hunger is shortsighted. Hunger and poverty are not inevitable curses. They have root causes that can be conquered.

Food aid alone, however, is not the solution. Investments in new agriculture techniques, crop variety, land conservation and seeds resistant to drought and disease will improve yields. Farmers' access to markets must be improved at the same time. We must also increase the purchasing power of the poor. Often, when food is available, they cannot afford to buy it.

Incomes will rise when vulnerable people get access to services such as water and sanitation, health care, schools and financial services. Fewer people will go hungry when we invest in social change and women and children receive an equal share of food.

Experts estimate the numbers of hungry people have been increasing at about 4 million a year. In countries where CARE works, we are seeing the poor become poorer as they spend more of their limited income on food. Now, the World Bank Group reports that 100 million people could be plunged deeper into poverty. Those of us with the power to end poverty and hunger must use it —- not just to provide emergency relief but to overcome global hunger in the long run. Otherwise, we shortchange generations of citizens, including our own.

> Helene D. Gayle is president and CEO of Atlanta-based CARE, which fights root causes of poverty in the world's poorest communities.