on the Miller Act payment bond based on the unsatisfied “pay if and when paid” clause in the Subcontract Agreement would prevent Walton from exercising its rights in accordance with the express terms of the Miller Act. It would, in effect, transform Walton’s agreement concerning Weststar’s contractual obligations into an implied waiver of Walton’s rights under the Miller Act. Thus, the validity of Defendants’ defense depends on whether the “pay when and if paid” clause constitutes a valid waiver of Walton’s Miller Act rights. We conclude that it does not. In Youngstown Welding & Engineering v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 802 F.2d 1164 (9th Cir.1986), we held that “federal courts have been uniform in their insistence that a waiver be clear and explicit.” I 38 S.Ct. 250, 62 L.Ed. 703 (1918) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Dismissing this defense to liability in a
holding  under the predecessor statute to the miller act  that the cost of food clothing and lodging for laborers is recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that the cost of capital equipment is not recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that lost profits are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that freight and transportalion charges are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act holding that injuries suffered by laborers are not recoverable under the terms of the miller act