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 (link...)

House stats here (link...)

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?