Heh, heh. This would make for a VERY responsive House and eliminate the problem of gerrymandering. The congressional districts would be so small, they couldn't be gerrymandered. It would also open up 4500 seats to average citizens who are probably sheriffs and school board reps now. It would probably also balance the budget.
Of course, the COST of Congress would go up ten fold, but if the Federal spending went down 10%, it would be well worth it.
Combine this with the repeal of the 17th amendment and Congress would be MUCH more representative of the US people. I used to think the 17th amendment was a good thing--I didn't want my state rep picking my Senator. But I didn't realize that the heavy urban population centers bias the senators toward the urban point of view. Having the state reps pick the senators is more balanced and makes them more responsive to the needs of their state.
No member of Congress should be paid a penny more than the lowest ranking member of our Military.
The cost would not necessarily go up. Congressional staffs do work that congressmen used to do themselves. With more congressmen, there would be less need for non-elected staffers for local offices back home. Congressional pay should be cut, and Congress should be limited to sessions of 100 days per year. The rest of the time they should be back in their districts acually living under the laws they pass.