Gee, Frenchie, I'm a little confused by your post, because you seem to be raising several different issues at once.
1) The semantics of "paid volunteer." Maybe that is oxymoronic; maybe not. If FEMA could fill all those positions with qualified people for those wages and benefits, just on the basis of the "market" attractiveness of those wages and benefits, then maybe it would be wrong to call them volunteers. But if the only way FEMA could fill those positions was due to the compassion, patriotism or altruism of the job applicants PLUS the wages and benefits, then I would say that it is appropriate to call them volunteers, because a large part of their motivation is altruistic. But I think the semantics could be argued either way.
2) The issue of rules and standard wages for jobs. Basically, jobs--particularly government jobs--are classified and paid at certain rates. Wages are not "individually tailored" to the needs or financial backgrounds of the employees. So, I see nothing wrong with your relatives being paid the standard rate for their work, even if they don't "need" the money.
3) The issue of "temporary" vs. "permanent" compensation. Your relatives are making 4x per hour while your husband is making 3x per hour. But your relatives are at a temporary job, while your husband is at a permanent job--at least as permanent as jobs can realistically be (you said he was there 6 years). Would a rational person really leave a normal, full-time job for a 33 percent increase in hourly pay if he knew the job was only likely to last 30 to 60 days, or maybe at best 6 months? Would a reasonable person relocate for such a temporary job? I don't know, but comparing a temporary job to a permanent one is like comparing apples and oranges. (To say nothing of the value of the non-salary benefits that your husband may be getting like health coverage, pension plan participation, etc.)
4) The issue of whether the wages and benefits are too high in general (leaving your relatives out of this, for the time being). I don't know the answer to that question. It does not really strike me as being outrageously high if the FEMA hirees are really helping the displaced appropriately. Maybe I'm jaded, but I live in a state capital city where I've walked into government offices only to have the government employee hastily close down the "Solitaire" game he had been playing on his computer before I walked in; had employees sit around and do the cross-word puzzle rather than help me, and many more horror stories about "do nothing" jobs, etc. If the FEMA hirees are really working and doing their jobs during this national emergency, then I don't feel its necessary to quarrel with their wages and benefits. That's just my personal feeling or opinion.