Senate Republicans in Washington have been getting the appropriate negative response to their proposal to send a $100 check to millions of taxpayers in response to high gasoline prices. It's laughable that such an ill-considered and ineffective solution to the current gasoline crisis would ever get beyond the kicking-around-ideas stage. Yet, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., pressed forward with the idea late last week.

Frist's chief of staff defended the proposal, saying the senator believes "government ought to step up to the plate rather than loll around in the dugout." But Frist's rebate check scheme is nothing close to stepping up to the plate — it is useless in terms of a long-term solution to the long-term problem of high gasoline prices — and the broader energy crisis facing America. News reports and comments from anonymous staffers on Capitol Hill reveal that the reaction from the public to Frist's $100 rebate plan was immediate — and overwhelmingly negative. Critics labeled the $100 figure "paltry" and blasted the "just-throw-money-at-the-problem" approach as a lame attempt to pander to voters in an election year. The critics are right on both counts.

Americans are angry over high energy prices, but they are almost equally frustrated with the lack of political leadership in Washington when it comes to developing a coherent national energy policy.

Most Americans know that a $100 rebate check or a temporary roll-back of gasoline taxes might help in the short run, but neither will do anything to increase the supply of gasoline or reduce the demand side of the equation. To maximize progress toward energy indepedence, both sides of the equation need to be addressed.

To impact the supply side of the equation, there are a variety of things Congress can and should do. In the short run, there should be a coordinated effort to increase the domestic production of oil and natural gas, including a push for more offshore drilling and pressure on oil companies to build more refining capacity. There also should be a reduction in current import taxes to allow more importation of ethanol from Brazil, where a massive sugar cane industry is producing ethanol relatively cheaply.

Congress also should take advantage of the win-win opportunity posed by domestic production of ethanol and biodiesel. Increased production of renewable biofuels not only replaces imported oil but also helps create new markets for American farmers.

Development of other sustainable sources of energy should receive additional financial incentives through the tax code.

On the demand side, Congress should get serious about vehicle fuel efficiency and should mandate higher mileage standards for cars and light trucks (including SUVs). In addition, lawmakers should help expedite the introduction of fuel-efficient, clean-diesel engines, which get 20 percent to 40 percent better mileage than a comparable gasoline engine and already power nearly 70 percent of new cars sold in Europe.

Nothing lawmakers are talking about — whether Frist's $100 rebate check idea or a temporary suspension of gasoline taxes — will move America toward energy independence. And that has to be the objective.

Most Americans understand that significant progress toward that goal cannot happen quickly. It has taken about 30 years for America to double the percentage of imported oil it uses, and it will take years of concerted effort to make any real progress in the other direction.

The current global supply picture for oil is a mess with serious questions surrounding production from Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Nigeria. On the supply side, Americans have not trimmed their insatiable demand for oil, and the rapidly growing economies of India and China are putting tremendous strains on global oil production.

Frist's rebate check scheme will do nothing to change either the supply or demand. America needs a multi-pronged and sustained effort to wean itself from reliance on imported oil, not a $100 check to help fill their gas tanks two or three times.

Our leaders in Washington should be expected to do better, or voters should replace them with leaders who can.