Justice Stevens, concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Souter and Justice Breyer, concurring.

As the majority recognizes, ante, at 12-13, a leading bankruptcy law treatise concluded that the 1994 amendments to §330(a)(1) contained an unintended error. 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ ;330.LH[5], pp. 330-75 to 330-76 (rev. 15th ed. 2003). Whenever there is such a plausible basis for believing that a significant change in statutory law resulted from a scrivener's error, I believe we have a duty to examine legislative history.1 In this case, that history reveals that the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA) not only called the assumed drafting error to Congress' attention in a timely fashion, but also deemed the error unworthy of objection.2 This evidence convinces me that the Court's reading of the text, which surely is more natural than petitioner's, is correct. I therefore concur in the judgment.