OK, here's the (corrected) composition by political party of each house during each era...

1935 (73rd Congress):
Senate had 59 Dems, 36 Repubs, 1 other* (composition 61% Dem)
House had 313 Dems, 117 Repubs, 5 other (composition 72% Dem)

* 96 seats because Alaska and Hawaii weren't yet states.

1965 (89th Congress):
Senate had 68 Dems, 32 Repubs (composition 68% Dem)
House had 295 Dems, 140 Repubs (composition 68% Dem)

So the Politifact.com assertion that Johnson enjoyed a 2/3 majority in the House in 1965 is correct.

Also, my 1965 stats as to the Senate are unchanged here because I had previously given you 89th Congress stats for the Senate, but 88th Congress stats for the House.

Clearly, I hadn't drunk enough coffee prior to posting. Apologies.

Senate stats here http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_teasers/partydiv.htm

House stats here http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html

Alaska and Hawaii weren't states yet?

(Blush.)

That was really my unspoken question in looking into these stats: Is the cause of this impasse on healthcare reform that Dems hold a smaller majority today than in 1935 and/or 1965, or is the impasse due to something else--like a different brand of Republican legislator today, or a different focus among today's media, or maybe just today's greater influence from lobbyists?

If you looked at those two charts indicating the political party composition in this session's Senate/House, you saw that we do hold smaller majorities in both than we did in 1935 or 1965. Today, Dems comprise just 59% of legislators in both chambers, but...is that the only reason this legislation has stalled?