Talk:KBR (company)

Untitled
129.252.142.30, can you provide some links to back up the KB - Lyndon Johnson link? Also, if Coke was so popular (Stevenson that is ;) you might wanna start writing an article about him. Oh, and for communication purposes it would be cool if you logged in... Guaka 13:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm not the poster of the original text, but this page http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/8129_comment.php mentions the Lyndon Johnson connection.

The links between LBJ and KBR (formerly BR) in this article are described in the opening pages of volume one of Robert A. Caro's biography of LBJ, The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power. I'm pretty sure that the connections are further developed in the book, but I haven't read that far yet. Scimb235, 08:47 (PDT), 9/27/04

B+R LBJ connection
Read pp. 23-32 of Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism by Bruce J. Schulman - another acadmically-reputable biography - for further corroboration of this link.

"Burn & Loot"
"Brown & Root was derided as 'Burn & Loot'", that's pretty funny. But shouldn't you Loot & then Burn? Why would anyone loot something burned? Just my two cents. And who's Kellogg? I didn't hear a word about him. - Jerryseinfeld 20:47, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
Reputable sources have been cited, so I took off the NPOV tag. Andrewbadr 19:15, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Iraq
"The firm was importing Kuwaiti oil for 23 eurocents a liter, which shouldn't have cost the U.S. government no more than 60 eurocents according to experts. The U.S. was selling this oil for 3,400 eurocents a liter."

I don't understand. Shouldn't the verb in the last sentence be "was buying" instad of "was selling" ??? yes indeed

Article title (proposed move)
If the company is now known as KBR, and is no longer Kellogg, Brown and Root, should the article be moved to KBR (company)? --Scott Davis Talk 15:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seconded. Maghnus 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
I have put up an infobox but could people edit it accordingly please

Shanequinlan01

Regional slang?
Is "fired with effect" the UK version of what is called "fired for cause" (violation of contract/policy, or something along those lines) in the US? If so, let's find a compromise term which is meaningful on both sides of the ocean.

"fired with effect from 31st March 2005" simply means that the employees lost their jobs on that date 82.41.15.121 17:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy
I won't be back on here for a while so here's just a suggestion: With all the mentions of controversy, we could possibly take all of that out, (except for link and comment), and put it under a LOGCAP entry all it's own. It detracts from the operations around the world that the company does and focuses the attention on one location and its financial issues rather than what the company actually does. I could easily do it and come up with a lot of verifiable references but I'd rather toss that out here first for your review. Lightertack 22:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just have to say that KBR nor Halliburton have anything to do with oil in Iraq or any other country. All these two companies do is build and help maintain the militaries infastructure. That is it NO OIL! GZUS96 21:14, 6 Nov. 2006 (side note: obviously this guy is 96 years old, but not senile)

"GZUS96, well..no..thats not true at all. Halliburton and KBR both are in the oil business. Halliburton is one of the largest providers of oil production infrastructure in the world. Dubai was built mostly by Halliburtons oil infrastructure. Offshore oil rigs, they make those. Refineries, those too. Halliburton has the single most extensive oil/drilling/refinment research campus of all petrochemical companies. KBR was on the RIO contract--thats oil..as mentioned in this Wiki article. KBR does oil and LNG work all over the world to this day.Lightertack 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)"

The previous paragraph fails to recognize the vast difference between building something and owning something. Both Halliburton and KBR build oil infrastructure, but neither one is an oil company, nor do either own oil companies, nor to they own oil infrastructure; they build them. They are construction and engineering companies. Dubai's oil infrastructure was built, but is not owned by such companies. The Halliburtons, KBRs, Bechtels, etc., are not in business to buy or sell oil. They provide design and construction services for oil companies and oil country governments when those oilfield owners want to pump the oil out of the ground or through pipelines. Like any contractors, they naturally work for as much profit as their customers are willing to agree on, given the difficulty or urgency of the project, or dangers where they must work. They have grown large because of their successful completion of projects others are incapable of accomplishing. [Malcolm Walker - 11/30/2008]

Removed text
IP address 64.154.26.251 used the and tags to strike out a paragraph from the article. Text prior to my removing said paragraph was:
 * On October 9th 2006 it was reported "Kellogg Brown & Root, a Halliburton subsidiary, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of Bush's "unlawful enemy combatants."" including US citizens since the Military Commissions Act of 2006 empowers Bush to declare not just aliens which means anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on Bush's list of "terrorist" organizations, or who speaks out against the government's policies could be declared an "unlawful enemy combatant" and imprisoned indefinitely. It claims that Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of Cheney's Halliburton, is constructing a huge facility at an undisclosed location to hold tens of thousands of undesirables.

The above text and reference provided are unverifiable. Striking out text like that doesn't seem to be the correct way of doing things; the talk page should be used to discuss controversial sections from the article. Carre 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Text Removal
The following text is wholly inaccurate and mixes several seperated concepts and contracts, it has been removed:

In the competition for the current LOGCAP contract, the Army Corps of Engineers asked competitors to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq. The Army chose KBR's plan in November 2001, though it remains classified.

On March 24, 2003, the Army announced publicly that KBR had been awarded five task orders in Iraq potentially worth $7 billion to implement the plan. One of the task orders, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, required KBR to "procure, import and deliver" fuels to Iraq. In fact, the contract was awarded more than two weeks earlier, without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to Congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances. They also said that the contract's classified status prevented open bidding.

Extinguishing the fires had nothing to do with LOGCAP, that was the RIO contract; Restore Iraqi Oil. Nothing to do with the same funding or staffing as LOGCAP, (which WAS put out for bid). The other big 'misinformation' is about the Task Orders being put out w/out bidding. Thats exactly what happens...task orders have nothing to do with contract awarding---they are nothing more than added operations and government authorized expendatures under a contract that's already awarded---hence it being illegal to put them out for bidding.

Like, if you were building a house, and you decided you wanted another window, you would not call another contractor to bid on adding a window while your house builder-contractor was building the rest of your house. You would issue a Task Order or Change Order to your builder to add the window. The contract you signed usually provides for this, and prevents your bidding out parts of the house to others while under construction. The terms of these Task Orders may be debatable, but depend on how badly you want the window, and how difficult or inconvenient it is for the builder to accommodate the change after the work has already been designed and started. [Malcolm Walker]

Libyan HIV case
I don't see it mentioned:

"An official investigation concluded that the infections had been concentrated in the wards where the Bulgarian nurses had been assigned. Dozens of Bulgarian medical workers were arrested, and a videotaped search of one nurse’s apartment turned up vials of H.I.V.-tainted blood.

According to a Libyan intelligence report submitted to the court, the nurse, Kristiyana Vulcheva, later confessed that the vials were given to her by a British friend who was working for the KBR subsidiary of Halliburton at the time. The nurse was quoted in the report as saying that she and her colleagues used the vials to infect the children." —Omegatron 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes to conditions of employment imposed on UK staff
Please add citations to this passage, which reads as in-house gossip, and has been cite tagged for several months, or it needs to be removed. Alvis 10:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This was an internal policy change that took place 3 years ago and is no longer relevant. The comments about personnel shortages have not proven out and overall company workload has increased significantly since 2004, most particularly since KBR has been on its own.

Given the lack of comment here and my agreement of the in-house gossip category it has been removed. It does not fulfil the overall goal of providing general useful information on the subject at hand. Fbody98 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

M W Kellogg History
Added M.W.Kellogg history to complete the background on KBR. Kellogg's heritage as a leader in the development of chemical engineering processes as well as the ability to successfully complete world class engineering and construction projects in the US and abroad are a major factor in making KBR the successful company it is today. --Cpuzer 16:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Workplace Sexual Assault
I'm not logged in now, but we should add a section about the Time magazine article on multiple reports of sexual assault. This ongoing news story is developing into a significant noteworthy event for this article. http://time-blog.com/work_in_progress/2008/02/at_halliburtonkbr_sexual_assau.html

KBR Water Makes US Troops in Iraq Sick
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.44.218.212 (talk) 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Political connections and controversy section
This entire section needs to be largely rewritten. It currently reads like a PR piece defending the company and is highly non-NPOV. Evouga (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any relationship at all to kellogs corn flakes? (UK breakfast cereal)
Just wondering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.74.90 (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No

Death of a soldier
I am not the right person to complete this, but I added the news snippet about the soldier's death today by electrocution due to KBR's lack of contracting standards. Their contract was to fix "only after it broke" which cost a soldier his life because the grounding DID break. KBR also inspected the area 11 months before hand and knew of the problem but nothing was done due to their specific contract. Front page CNN right now. -Moocats (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I put all of information about soldier electrocution together into the Iraq section where I'd mentioned the New York Times piece earlier, taking the CNN stuff out of the employee safety section--The Iraq section seemed the appropriate place for all of it since it's soldiers in Iraq that are being electrocuted, not KBR employees. I still think the wording is a bit awkward for that piece--It certainly could be tweaked. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I added that the Army investigator is now calling the death a homocide rather than an accident.&mdash;Red XIV (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Name change
The article says "KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root)" but gives no information on when the change occurred, and I can find none elsewhere. The date should be added to the article if it can be verified. Languagehat (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As a 20 year KBR employee....
This really missed the heart and history of what KBR has achieved in its history. I know its politically fashionable to attack KBR because of the time Cheney was associated with us, but this article reads as almost hate mail.


 * Do you seriously mean to claim that taking a criminal organization to task for its crimes is merely a matter of being "politically fashionable"? KBR has litigated for years to try to thwart employees' demands for criminal proceedings against their attackers. Shame on you for trying to trivialize those efforts.

The company has engineered and constructed so many of the modern world's marvels. To limit this to a hack piece about LOGCAP makes your otherwise friendly service seem very "small". There are published histories that could provide a better and balanced background.
 * ...and Hitler built the autobahn. What's your point?

161.51.3.235 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well as long as they make cool toys i guess negligent homicide, gang rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, human trafficking, tax evasion, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, illegal contracts, and incredible billing procedures should just be ignored? Is that what your alluding to as being "balanced"? I'm sure if there are so "many marvels" created by this company they will be mentioned. Are the histories you refer to published by KBR? As a general rule, You could be an angel to humanity for 20yrs and if on the 21st year you rape someone, you have negated any positive reputation you had. Oh, unless you make cool toys though, right? Then negligent homicide, gang rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, human trafficking, tax evasion, violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, illegal contracts, and incredible billing procedures should be forgotten so we can bask in the "marvels" your company produced.

This article is good at maintaining NPOV (which I know, I am not) Stating the facts is not hate mail. If the facts read poorly by personal moral standards then the fault is with the company not the encyclopedia presenting them.

In addition, If it reads like hate mail by your personal opinion maybe double checking your priorities for employment should be considered. 68.38.13.24 (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)Marek

Actually you (the 20 year employee) make an excellent point. 99% of the work done by KBR has been well executed and conducted by honest hardworking engineering and construction personnel doing work they can and should be proud of. This site has become a highly focused on the Logcap contracts and the politically motivated charges against the company.

The accusations that all associations with KBR are tainted by the charges against a relative few are ridiculous and small minded and irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpuzer (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am currently a contractor for KBR in Iraq and as the 20 year employee said before me, the actions of a few should not warrant the the generalizations you make about about KBR as a whole. KBR goes through an extensive process researching the last 10 years of your life before you come over here. The do backround checks, financial checks, medical checks, as well as the U.S Department of Defense doing the same checks in order to provide you with security clearance to be allowed onto the base and into certain areas of it. It's for sure the most most extensive employment process I or anybody I know has ever been through in their whole lives. They train you and breif you from day one on sexual harrasment and how to report it, human traficking and how to report it, and currupt actions and how to report it. They do everything they can to get the best people out here they can but it's just impossiblr to really know for sure what happens when a person gets out secluded for so long. Did you know that contractors in Iraq only represent 10-15% of the sexual assualt/harrasment cases in the theater? How about the KBR employee who was shot by ARMY man who was going to shoot everyone in the dining facility, but was prevented by the KBR employees actions. What you are doing in this acticle is providing information on KBR employees actions reported by media. None of the good stuff and all of the bad. 95% percent of it is unavoidable by Corporate Headquarters because they have no knowledge of it until it blows up in their face despite all the actions the have taken to make themselves available for reporting such issues. And on the issue of tax ivasion, it's not tax ivasion or they would have had to stop it, and since I am currently technically employed by SEII, they didn't stop it. And while it may be a bad thing to do in your eyes, it's not against the law, and it's been going on for years upon years by everyone. This country was founded by wealthy bussiness owners, you think it wasn't formed in their best interests? Wake up and smell the coffee. Money makes the world go round and the onces who have the most choose the speed at which it turns. Welcome to life.... -me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezikc (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Moved from the Halliburton article
This information pertains firstly to KBR, so I have moved it here from Halliburton. Use as you see fit, responsibly:

Skomorokh 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Duplication of Jamie Lee Jones alleged gang rape controversy info
There info on the alleged gang rape of MS. Jones appears both in the section on "Activities in Iraq" and the controversies sections. It should go one place or the other but not both. I not sure which section it should be removed from though. --Cab88 (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More sexual harassment
This time at the UK embassy. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6917842.ece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.226.6 (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick changes
To help the article a fraction less gentle on poor little Haliburton i've changed a few words, so please resist your automatic response to revert them. Acknowledging that something is illegal is not quite the same as admitting it. Likewise, you don't "agree" to go to prison for 7 years, you are just sent there. I'm sure I could go through the entire article and find many more but i really can't be bothered. But maybe you editors could be a little less sensitive to the poor little dears. --Genesis (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

British contracts
The article has no mention of the recent surge in KBR's contracts in Britain. Apparently they are coordinating building aircraft carriers (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2374afee-7925-11d9-89c5-00000e2511c8.html), OSC contract from the MoD (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/kbr-wins-uk-government-operational-202700594.html), and privatizing part of British police force (http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18067143/us-military-industrial-giant-kbr-in-bidding-to-privatize-british-police-forces).

That's all from the two minute google search I had time to do.

Interesting.

Would edit the article, but I cannot into wiki-writing (barely know how to post this). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.52.49 (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear plant construction
Brown & Root attempted to build a nuclear power plant in Texas and were relieved of this contract. (The article on the South Texas Nuclear Generating Station does not say much about the details, either. It should.)

Some details of this are at http://texasvox.org/2009/07/10/south-texas-nuclear-project-the-early-years/

Inferior concrete and problems with rebar and also welding inspection seem to plague the industry and such allegations (and some proven allegations) surfaced during the time the events occurred there as well. If I am not mistaken, certain alleged events in reality involving B&R formed part of the script of the fictional film "The China Syndrome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mydogtrouble (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewite needed
Full disclosure, I have a conflict of interest as an employee (Engineer, non-management) and therefore shall not be editing this article myself.

This article does not seem to be heading in the correct direction to becoming a better class of article. I suggest other low importance pages company pages are used as a template of how to divide the sections of this page. Low-Class quality=B Whilst I would not remove any well sourced material, the format in which the controversy is displayed overwhelms the content of the article (approx. 1800 words out of 3400).

I believe this article would read far better if other sections were bulked out, or the controversy consolidated to be of the same scale. I do not wish to imply that any facts about past wrong doing should be hidden or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.6.213 (talk) 09:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split of Brown & Root section into its own article
has proposed that the Brown & Root section should be moved into its own article and has created a draft at Draft:Brown & Root Industrial Services which I have declined for inclusion for the moment until there is some consensus here. This discussion follows on from what was started on Stafford Kendall's talk page. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 12:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. KBR, created from a merger of M. W. Kellogg and Brown & Root in 1997, has a very long history. So to split off Brown & Root without splitting off M. W. Kellogg makes no sense and it would leave the article on KBR much reduced as a result. Incidentally Brown & Root Industrial Services seems to be a modest recently-formed joint venture so an article on that entity is not the right place to which to relocate the long history of Brown & Root. Dormskirk (talk) 13:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Topic already sufficiently covered in this article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Update Content with Current Company Information
A number of updates are needed to this page to reflect the current information about the company.

Updates are needed in the following areas: At the end of the first paragraph, add, "Recently, KBR acquired several technical services firms,-- including Wyle Laboratories, Honeywell Technology Solutions Inc. (HTSI) , and  Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies (SGT) -- which expanded the company’s professional services support to public sector clients."


 * Per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article so this is not the place to put such a sentence. Also we do not use "recently" as when a reader comes to read the article in a few years time "recently"will be inaccurate. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Replace "The company also has large offices in Arlington, Virginia, Birmingham, Alabama, and Newark, Delaware, in the United States and Leatherhead in the UK.' with the following: "The company has offices across the U.S. including Huntsville, AL; Birmingham, AL; Wilmington, DE; Clearlake, TX; Greenbelt, MD; Lexington Park, MD; and the Washington, D.C. metro area. Globally, KBR has offices in Canada, Mexico, the U.K., China, India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Australia."


 * I have removed the unsourced and out of date list of offices. I have not introduced a new list as (i) per WP:LEAD the lead should be a summary of the article and (ii) such a list should be independent sourced per WP:CITE. Dormskirk (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Delete photo #3 and related caption: Delete: KBR offices on Clinton Drive,[2][3]within the boundaries of the East Endand the Fifth Ward.[4][5] It is the former headquarters of Brown & Root.[6] As of December 2010 KBR no longer operates this office."


 * Deleted. Dormskirk (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Add Section: "Recent Acquisitions Expanding further into professional and technical government services sector, KBR recently completed the acquisition of Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies, Inc. (SGT). SGT provides technological and IT software solutions as well as mission operations for clients in government services, including NASA. SGT joined KBRwyle, the U.S. government services business within KBR, which was formed after KBR’s acquisition of the former Wyle Laboratories. KBRwyle recent contract awards have included support services for the PATRIOT missile systems, assistance with the commercialization of low-Earth orbit enterprises and expertise to help the US Department of Defense Information Analysis Center ."


 * Sentence on Stinger Ghaffarian Technologies added. Dormskirk (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Add Section: "Current Business Operations Today, KBR provides a variety of professional services to public and private sector customers, primarily in the energy industry . KBR employs more than 30,000 people across the world, and they handle notable projects such helping with the Sadara Chemical Facility, the largest chemical complex ever built from the ground up. Also, through its government service provider KBRwyle, the company is heavily involved in mission support for several space agencies, including its support of NASA through training and care of American astronauts ."


 * The lead already says which industry it operates in. The infobox already says the number of employees (which is 20,000 according to page 11 of the SEC filing). Sentence on the Sadara Chemical Facility added. Sentence on KBRwyle's activities also added. Dormskirk (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

12.133.175.226 (talk) 00:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Undue weight in controversy section
, please elaborate on your concerns regarding the controversy section to explain why you tagged it for undue weight. Schazjmd  (talk)  16:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a case of WP:Drive by. If DonaldMSpencer believes that the section can be improved he should do so. In the absence of any attempt to improve the article or any discussion on the talk page, I would support removing the tag per WP:DETAG. Dormskirk (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In short, it's a lot of "six degress of Kevin Bacon" by the nature of the business but "Late payment", "Shell companies..", "Political connections...", name a contractor that works with the goverment that doesn't have political connections. The other 2 are common place. Most seem to be 2009 range so perhaps the anti-Bush/Cheney era, I get it, but is that what this is for?--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 16:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of generic hand-waving. Please state specific edits that you think need to be made. Is there information that is unsourced or poorly sourced? If there's specific information that you don't think meets Wikipedia policies for inclusion in the article, what is it? Schazjmd   (talk)  17:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That is fair, let me research the guidelines to get more specific.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 17:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag for now pending detailed proposals for improvement. Dormskirk (talk) 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a problem. With the Political connections section it has multiple primary sources which means original research was performed. This violates the WP:ORIGINAL policy. Which lends to whole section having the righting great wrongs prose. The Criticism policy even states avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. To fall back on reliable sources doesn't address material that way over-emphasizes it per the neutrality and verifiability policy. Interested in your thoughts.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 15:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you,, that's a bit more actionable. I went through the Political connections section:
 * Para 1: Mother Jones is merely stating a fact, so there is nothing supporting it being in a Controversy section. Nothing in the Mother Jones article is critical of the practice.
 * Para 2: Begins "Some controversy arose" but no source supporting that the contract was controversial.
 * Para 3: No source that RIO award is controversial.
 * Para 4: Primary source only and doesn't support "controversy about the DCAA report"
 * Para 5: Supported by NYT article
 * Para 6: Source is a dead URL with no archived copy and, again, is merely a statement of fact.

I would recommend removing all except para 5 from Political connections and corruption, and change the section heading to Questionable charges to better reflect the remaining content. , what do you think? Schazjmd  (talk)  16:08, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you too.--DonaldMSpencer (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok with me. Thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ Schazjmd   (talk)  16:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Waxman allegations
This another section that section that should not be there. It is allegations and the source is a press release. Both of which are not in line with the guidelines. DonaldMSpencer (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly every newspaper in the country covered Waxman's concerns about the contracts for Iraq. I've added another source to the section. Schazjmd   (talk)  18:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)