This morning, a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee will mark up the "No More Solyndras" bill, which Republicans have said will end the controversial Department of Energy loan guarantee program that provided $535 million to the now-infamous and bankrupt California solar manufacturer.

But committee ranking member Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) pointed out yesterday afternoon during opening statements on the bill that that is not exactly what the GOP measure would do.

The bill, which is up for debate in the Energy and Power Subcommittee today, would set a cutoff date for new loan applications for the Section 1703 program, which is the one loan guarantee program that DOE still has funding and authority to grant loans under. Solyndra received its loan under the much more generous Section 1705 program, which ended last fall.

Waxman noted that the Dec. 31, 2011, cutoff date that the No More Solyndras Act sets would mean that some 50 projects would still be eligible for loan guarantees.

"Let's be clear," Waxman said yesterday. "Under this legislation, tens of billions of dollars of loan guarantees will be issued in the years to come. ... The bill picks winners and losers by prohibiting DOE from considering any applications for loan guarantees submitted after December 31, 2011."

Waxman's messaging jujitsu on a program that Republicans have repeatedly bashed for "picking winners and losers" represents the latest challenge Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans face as they bring to a close their 17-month long Solyndra investigation.

While Solyndra has provided the GOP with plenty of political fodder since going bust last fall, the process of actually moving the No More Solyndras Act has proven to be somewhat confounding for Republicans.

The bill was pulled from a markup last week after some Republicans, including former committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Texas), expressed reservations about shutting down a program that traces its roots back to the 2005 energy policy bill.

Those Republicans who questioned the bill have earned sharp rebukes in some conservative circles, and last week, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal branded Barton and Reps. Michael Burgess of Texas and Phil Gingrey of Georgia as the "GOP's Solyndra Wing."

Yesterday, Burgess used his opening statement to read a letter to the editor he sent to The Wall Street Journal laying out the work he has done to try to hold the Obama administration accountable for the Solyndra debacle.

"I have done everything in my power to aggressively pursue answers" from the Obama administration on Solyndra, Burgess said. "To say that I am to blame for the next Solyndra is absurd, insulting and not accurate."

After the hearing, Burgess said he felt compelled to respond to the editorial to set the record straight.

"It was such a misrepresentation of everything I've done on this," the congressman said.

Burgess acknowledged that he had raised a question about how ending the loan program might affect the nuclear industry. But he said that if a member of Congress cannot ask a question without being attacked, "we've reached a pretty sorry state."

"I was concerned about nuclear, to be perfectly honest," he said. However, "my understanding after doing more research is that people involved in new nuclear are really not interested in this program and it's not harmful to them to have this program withdrawn."

He added that on Monday, Republicans on the committee had a "very through briefing on this legislation," adding that it was a meeting "that probably should have occurred much earlier in the process."

Amendments on tap

During the continuation of the markup today, 15 amendments are expected, including 13 from Democrats that will most likely be aimed at taking some of the teeth out of the bill.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), who has said he is suspicious that the sunset provision would protect the nuclear industry, which has pending applications, is set to offer several amendments that would bar loan guarantees from companies that are $535 million over budget or have net losses by that amount. Markey's amendment also would require that recipients of a loan guarantee use at least 75 percent domestic products to build a project and disqualify any publicly traded company that had been warned of being delisted from the New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ.

Burgess is set to offer an amendment that would provide administrative penalties for violations of the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

During their investigation into Solyndra, Republicans were distressed to learn that the 2005 Energy Policy Act did not provide any penalties for those who violated its provisions when it came to issuing and managing loan guarantees. Under Burgess' amendment, penalties could include firing, being put on leave without pay or lesser actions like being required to attend training.