Code defines “security interest” as “a hen created by an agreement.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(51) (emphasis added). In contrast, the Code provides that the term “statutory hen” means a “hen arising solely by force of a statute on specified circumstances or conditions ... but does not include security interest or judicial hen.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(53) (emphases added). Because plaintiffs’ tax hens arose under state statute, and not from a consensual or voluntary agreement with the taxpayer defendants, we concur in the bankruptcy court’s ruling that those hens are not “security interests” for purposes of § 1322(b)(2). The foregoing interpretation of § 1322(b)(2) is supported by substantial authority from other jurisdictions. See, e.g., In re DeMaggio, 175 B.R. 144, 146-47 (Bankr. D.N.H.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Sabec, 137 B.R. 659, 667-68 (Bankr.
holding plain language compelled that reading holding that general statement of intent does not override plain language of statute holding that plain language and statutory history of  1322b2 establish that noneonsensual tax hens do not fall within antimodification provision of that statute recognizing that legislative history is not used to create ambiguity where statutory language is clear recognizing that where the statutory language is not ambiguous  the plain and ordinary meaning of the statute must be given effect