A long-term solution to roadway and bridge problems across the country isn’t likely to be found this year, U.S. Rep. David Rouzer said Wednesday.

But anyone who travels from New Hanover County to Brunswick County can attest that problems do exist locally, as in other parts of the nation, said Rouzer, a Republican who represents North Carolina’s 7th district, including Wilmington and surrounding areas.  

“Our infrastructure really needs to be improved in a dramatic way,” Rouzer said in a keynote address to those gathered for a Wilmington Chamber of Commerce breakfast Wednesday at the Terraces on Sir Tyler.

Forty-two state chambers of commerce, including North Carolina's, asked federal officials and lawmakers in a letter in February to "make transportation infrastructure investment a top priority." 

As Congress addresses transportation bills in coming weeks, the timeline and finding the money to pay for improvements remain uncertain.

“We definitely would like to have a multi-year bill for certainty, for stability purposes,” Rouzer said. “It’s hard to plan and prepare if you only have a two-year extension. You really need at least a four-year and preferably a six-year bill.”

Rouzer could be poised to have an influence on upcoming decisions as a member of the House’s Transportation and Infrastructure committee.

“We are short about $72 billion of the money that we need to take care of everything if you assume that we reauthorize a highway bill over a six-year period,” Rouzer said. “We’re not going to be able to come up with $72 billion, obviously, but we’ve got to cobble together what we can.”

At the chamber breakfast Wednesday, Rouzer elaborated on the surface transportation reauthorization bill in response to a question from Wilmington city councilwoman Laura Padgett about a multi-year proposal moving forward.

“I’d say in the next three to five years, we’re going to bite the bullet and figure out a long-term solution, and I think it’s [the funding source] going to probably be a combination of things,” Rouzer said.

Options could include a “repatriation” of the dollars some multi-national companies have “sitting overseas,” Rouzer said.

“That would bring in a significant chunk of change, so that’s one option that’s on the table as well as all kind of other creative ideas,” he said.

During his keynote address Wednesday, Rouzer also talked about other issues he’s faced as a freshman in the House, after defeating New Hanover County Board of Commissioners chairman Jonathan Barfield, a Democrat, in November’s 7th district election.

In February, Rouzer was named co-chairman of a caucus that focuses on issues of concern to coastal areas.

“We’re trying to educate people, other members from other areas of the country, that these beaches and inlets and waterways are just like their roads and bridges,” Rouzer said. “They’re just as important to commerce as the roads and bridges are elsewhere.”  

Rouzer said he considers last week’s bipartisan repeal of a Medicare fee cut, known as the “doc fix” deal, as a “really remarkable” achievement.

“If you’re going to get a handle on the [nation’s] debt ... you’ve got to deal with the entitlements of Medicare and Social Security. If we’re going to have Medicare long-term and keep it solid for the future and address the debt that we face, we’ve got to make some modifications of that sort to the Medicare program,” Rouzer said.

He said the bill shows “all is not lost in Washington. In fact, it’s such a strong bipartisan vote, I anticipate that will encourage the Senate to deal with the issue.”

But nationally, not everyone has been happy with the proposed legislation. In a press release issued by PR Newswire on Wednesday, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) urged the Senate to vote the House bill down.

“HR 2 does not repeal the Medicare price controls that began in the 1980s, which are the cause of limited access to care and misallocation of resources,” the news release said, attributing the opinion to AAPS president Richard Amerling. “It gives a tiny ‘update’ in allowed fees, which does not begin to cover the increase in practice costs.”

The release says the bill “adds oppressive bureaucratic practice controls. It demands that doctors use an ‘alternative payment methodology,’ which means payment for something other than doing work. This includes compliance with government directives, patient outcomes that are largely outside a doctor's control, and ‘saving’ money by not providing services.”