Code defines “security interest” as “a lien created by an agreement.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(51) (emphasis added). In contrast, the Code provides that the term “statutory lien” means a “lien 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 liens 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 liens 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 that plain language and statutory history of  1322b2 establish that nonconsensual tax hens do not fall within antimodification provision of that statute holding that general statement of intent does not override plain language of 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 holding plain language compelled that reading