Clinton was also expected to outline steps to permit family remittances from the United States to Cuba of $1,200 a year per household, impose fewer restrictions on sales of medicines to humanitarian organizations, and persuade Congress to allow food sales to Cuba, the official said.

The plan was quickly criticized by hard-line opponents of Cuban President Fidel Castro, including Republican Sen. Jesse Helms, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and co-author of the Helms-Burton law that tightened the 36-year-old U.S. economic embargo against Cuba two years ago.

Helms viewed Clinton's planned action as a "serious mistake,'' his spokesman Mark Thiessen said, adding that Helms had been caught unawares by the administration's plan.

The planned moves follow a historic visit to Cuba by Pope John Paul in January during which the pope called both for Cuba to open up to the world and for the world to open up to it. The pontiff also reiterated his opposition to the embargo on Havana.

"The decision is based on the conclusion that Pope John Paul II's visit created space for people to act in contravention to Castro,'' the official said.

"This is not a reciprocal step or based on the expectation that Castro will change, (although) a lot of people see the possibility of increased religious freedom'' there, he said.

The Clinton initiatives would mark a shift in the hard-line U.S. policy of trying to isolate Cuba politically and economically and pressure Castro into change.

Allowing direct flights and remittances would reverse bans imposed by the U.S. government in 1996 after Cuba shot down two planes flown by anti-Castro activists, killing the four crew.

Officials said key elements of U.S. Cuba policy--including the embargo and the Helms-Burton law that seeks to discourage foreign investment in Cuba--would remain in force.

There was no immediate word from Havana on the planned moves.

Thiessen said Helms "thinks it's a serious mistake, not because he disagrees with substance of some of what they are doing but because they are doing it unilaterally.''

He noted Helms had been working on legislation and trying to build consensus on providing humanitarian aid to Cuba through the Roman Catholic church and charity groups and authorizing direct flights to deliver the aid.

He said Clinton's actions "undercuts Helms' ability to get that done...Politically, the administration is standing on quicksand. They had an opportunity to have a bipartisan policy and all of us are wondering why they would take this step.''

Asked if Clinton could legally act in this way, Thiessen said: "That's not clear at all. The Helms-Burton law codified the embargo, including all the executive orders, including the one stopping the direct flights. So they are on shaky legal ground in doing this.''

Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, another opponent of Castro in the U.S. Congress, told Reuters: "There's no change needed of U.S. policy. What's needed is a change in the government in Cuba. If there's any embargo that must be lifted, it's the embargo that Castro has over the Cuban people.''

In Miami, home to many in the large Cuban exile community, hard-line foes of Castro said easing sanctions against Cuba was a cynical concession to big business.

"I consider this an insult to the deaths of our four comrades,'' said Jose Basulto, president of Brothers to the Rescue, an exile organization whose two planes were shot down in the February 1996 incident near Cuba.

"It's an insult to their memory, and another treason by the Clinton administration to the Cuban people,'' he said.

Other exiles said they were angry that the pope's visit to Cuba was mentioned as a reason for easing sanctions, without any concessions by the Cuban government.

"What is this, a reward for killing the American citizens,'' asked Ninoska Perez, a director and spokeswoman for the influential Cuban American National Foundation.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has campaigned to get Clinton to lift the economic embargo, gave a guarded welcome to the moves, saying they were not enough.

"They are fine but they are not a substitute for trade,'' although they show that momentum on behalf of ending the embargo is building in this country, said John Howard, director of the chamber's international policy and programs.