Schock went on to say that despite the anti-spending mood cultivated by Republicans on the Hill, Congress should still be able to find funding for important projects like transportation — and that infrastructure was a sector underserved by the stimulus.
"You can't make those necessary infrastructure improvements with a one-year shot-in-the-arm stimulus program," Schock said.
Carney, playing off Schock's comments, emphasized the importance of long-term cost certainty for state and local governments considering transportation projects. He also emphasized that the program would "put people back to work" and functioned as "an important jobs bill."
Carney also emphasized that dedicated funding from fuel taxes should make the bill more palatable to those on both sides of the aisle concerned about spending.
"In a normal situation, these are the kind of things you borrow money for," Carney said.
In the pair's letter to the president, they argue that "short-term extensions fail to recognize that meaningful, large-scale transportation projects take years to plan, approve and implement."
"The traditional six-year time-frame allows state departments of transportation to prepare for substantial infrastructure projects," it continues.