TEMECULA -- For the third year in a row, U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa will try to push a bill through Congress transferring nearly 1,200 acres of federal land into the control of the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians.

Issa, R-Temecula, introduced the legislation at the start of the legislative session that would take three separate parcels out of the control of the Bureau of Land Management and add them to the existing 5,500 acres of the Pechanga Reservation. The Pechangas say the land holds cultural and historical importance to the tribe. The bill would put the areas into the care of the tribe for conservation and preservation.

The bill, H.R. 28, has no co-sponsors.

"The area contains sacred rock carvings and is a key part of the Tribe's watershed," Pechanga Tribal Chairman Mark Macarro wrote in an e-mail. "We will continue to work with Congressman Issa to protect the land and cultural sites for future generations."

A group of disenrolled Pechanga members ousted from the tribe in 2004 are voicing opposition to the bill, however, saying the tribe has been a violator of human and civil rights, and should not benefit from the public trust.

John Gomez Jr. of Temecula was one of the 130 adults who were disenrolled from the tribe in 2004 after their lineage was questioned. The group unsuccessfully sued requesting a state judge order the tribe to continue their membership.

"We are Temecula Indians, they never said we weren't. They just got rid of us," Gomez said.

He said the proposed bill would further remove the group of disenrolled tribe members from the culturally important properties by placing some of the ancestral lands that contain burial sites under the sole control of the Pechangas.

"By saying one group should have control of those sites, we don't think that is proper. We want to ensure we have access to those areas. Just because a small group got rid of us doesn't mean we don't still have ties to those sites."

Gomez said that if there is going to be a land transfer there should be a hearing on the issue to better educate Issa and other members of Congress about the complexities that exist among all the members, present and former, of the tribe.

"All we want is the ability to tell the story as to why the Pechanga Band, because of their actions, should not be the sole beneficiary of this transfer and that we have an interest and ties to those sites. We would hope that Congress would listen to us."

Frederick Hill, Issa's press secretary, said Gomez's concerns are unrelated to the land transfer bill -- even thought Gomez said the issues are clearly intertwined.

"Bureau of Land Management actually approached our office and indicated they had these parcels of land to which they had no use for. They indicated the land may have historical importance to the Pechanga Tribe," Hill said. "The Pechanga Tribe was interested in having these lands added to their trust."

There is no land cost associated with the transfer, Hill said, because the land isn't being sold, but is instead, "just being transferred from one entity of the federal government to another."

The Bureau of Land Management manages 261.8 million acres of surface land primarily in 12 western states. The three parcels of land Issa is proposing to turn over to the tribe total 1,197 total acres and are undevelopable.

The largest parcel is a 971-acre area just west of the current Pechanga reservation. The rugged land is covered with a dense mix of oak woodlands, chaparral and coastal sage scrub. The slopes throughout the parcel are steep and eroded.

A second 200-acre area that sits to the northeast of the reservation has also been identified as surplus land by the Bureau of Land Management. The last parcel is 19.83 acres in an isolated area just south of Sun City and contains burial sites of high importance to the tribe, Hill said.

In November 2005, the tribe entered into a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management that states the Pechangas will manage the lands for conservation purposes.

Issa introduced similar legislation both in 2004 and 2005. Last year's bill was passed by the house, but died in a Senate committee. The current version on the bill has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Contact staff writer Nicole Sack at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2616 or nsack@thecalifornian.com.