Page:United States Statutes at Large Volume 108 Part 3.djvu/400

 108 STAT. 2152 PUBLIC LAW 103-323—SEPT. 21, 1994 Public Law 103-323 103d Congress An Act Sept. 21, 1994 [S. 1066] To restore Federal services to the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of Michigan. (fig United States of America in Congress assembled, 25 USC 1300J. SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The Congress finds the following: (1) The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians is the descendant of, and political successor to, the signatories of the Treaty of Greenville 1795 (7 Stat. 49); the Treaty of Grouseland 1805 (7 Stat. 91); the Treaty of Spring Wells 1815 (7 Stat. 131); the Treaty of the Rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie 1817 (7 Stat. 160); the Treaty of St. Mary's 1818 (7 Stat. 185); the Treaty of Chicago 1821 (7 Stat. 218); the Treaty of the Mississinewa on the Wabash 1826 (7 Stat. 295); the Treaty of St. Joseph 1827 (7 Stat. 305); the Treaty of St. Joseph 1828 (7 Stat. 317); the Treaty of Tippecanoe River 1832 (7 Stat. 399); and the Treaty of Chicago 1833 (7 Stat. 431). (2) In the Treaty of Chicago 1833, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians was the only band that negotiated a right to remain in Michigan. The other Potawatomi bands relinquished all lands in Michigan and were required to move to Kansas or Iowa. (3) Two of the Potawatomi bands later returned to the Great Lakes area, the Forest County Potawatomi of Wisconsin and the Hannahville Indian Community of Michigan. (4) The Hannahville Indian Community of Michigan, the Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians of Kansas, and the Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, whose members are also descendants of the signatories to one or more of the aforementioned treaties, have been recognized by the Federal Government as Indian tribes eligible to receive services from the Secretary of the Interior. (5) Beginning in 1935, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians petitioned for reorganization and assistance pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq., commonly referred to as the "Indian Reorganization Act"). Because of the fiuancial condition of the Federal Government during the

�