WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's call to give religious charities an expanded role in federal social programs ran into a House buzz saw Wednesday as Republican critics complained it would override state and local anti-discrimination laws.

The controversy briefly threatened the break-up of a coalition the administration has assembled in support of the bill. The Family Research Council, a conservative group, declared the bill was ``in danger of being hijacked by homosexual groups,'' adding it would abandon its support if it were changed to defer to state and local laws.

``Now that the truth about this bill has been exposed, even members of the president's own party cannot support it in good faith,'' said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

But Rep. J.C. Watts, R-Okla, the bill's chief supporter, dismissed the criticism as propaganda, saying at day's end the GOP leadership had lined up enough support to ensure its passage on Thursday.

``We did not add. We did not take away. We uphold the '64 civil rights law,'' he said, referring to landmark civil rights era anti-discrimination legislation.

Republican officials later said the White House, the GOP leadership and lawmakers who raised the discrimination issue were attempting to draft a formal, scripted exchange of views to be read on the House floor Thursday that would say the controversy would be addressed in a final House-Senate compromise.

The bill marks a down-payment on Bush's campaign pledge to ``rally the armies of compassion'' to attack the nation's social ills. The legislation would allow religious charities to compete for billions of dollars in federal funds in an expanded list of federal programs, including housing, domestic violence and hunger relief.

Recipients of aid would not be required to attend worship services or religious instruction. The organizations themselves would be permitted to retain religious names, charters and symbols on building walls.

The measure also grants a series of small tax breaks - far more modest than Bush wanted - to support charitable giving. These included a provision that permits non-itemizers to deduct $25 in donations annually.

The White House, which has lined up the support of numerous conservative groups for the bill, trumpeted a letter during the day from the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a civil rights organization, which expressed support for ``the principles'' in the legislation.

Supporters of the bill said that concerns about separation of church and state led to numerous changes that have left the bill diluted to the point that it would prevent funds from reaching some of the religious groups that Bush often cites.

Even so, Democrats and some independent groups attacked the bill, saying it would erode numerous federal anti-discrimination protections that have been enacted over the past several decades.

Federal law generally bars discrimination on the basis of race, gender, national origin and religion. The 1964 civil rights law gives religious groups an exemption from the prohibition on religious discrimination, and supporters of the bill said they had merely retained that exemption. Critics argued that the exemption was far broader.

Federal law does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but some state and local laws do.

In the run-up to the scheduled debate, a pivotal group of GOP critics zeroed in on the issue of state and local anti-discrimination laws.

Several sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said some Republicans raised the issue at the party's regular, weekly closed-door meeting. Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., circulated a proposed amendment that specified that the bill would leave all state and local civil rights laws intact.

The White House and Republican leadership aides said they were worried critics would prevail when they forced a vote on the issue, and that the coalition of religious groups supporting passage would begin to unravel. And the NAACP and the Human Rights Campaign weighed in with support for the amendment.

The bill ``would have the unintended consequence of superseding existing state and local laws that prohibit discrimination,'' Foley said in a statement emphasizing his long-term support for so-called faith-based initiatives.

``Simply put, a local Catholic church would not be forced to hire a gay minister or assistant if they chose to accept federal funds and operated a charity in a jurisdiction with a civil rights law that covered sexual orientation,'' he said. ``Rather, federal policy should codify that the charitable arm which collects government funds should not be allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices or the delivery of services to those who need it most.''