The repeal passed the Senate on a near party line vote (R over D), sponsored by 3 Republicans, and passed the House will nearly all R and 2/3 of D.
Clinton could have vetoed it, though, since the Senate didn't have a two-thirds majority.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93...
Of course, looking to the future from the future, a veto would likely be irrelevant since Bush took over a year and a half later.
Here's a snippet from his signing speech.
>You heard Senator Gramm characterize this bill as a victory for freedom and free markets. And Congressman LaFalce characterized this bill as a victory for consumer protection. And both of them are right. And I have always believed that one required the other. It is true that the Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate for the economy in which we live.
https://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/l...
Indeed, what I meant to say was "under" and not "by". My bad. Too late to edit.
You might want to do a little reading on the repeal of sections of Dodd Frank.
>The measure’s framework is expected to eventually pass the Senate thanks to a dozen finance-friendly and swing-state Democrats who have openly announced their co-sponsorship. With Republicans in control of the House, the bill seems destined to reach President Donald Trump’s desk this year.
https://newrepublic.com/article/147247/democrats-helping-tru...
So naturally, given the broad-based success of the repeal, there's no interest in reviving it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_legislation