Democratic lawmakers are pushing a bill to disapprove of a nuclear cooperation agreement struck between the United States and Saudi Arabia in a bid to strike down the proposal during a three-month period of congressional review.

Democratic Reps. Gregory Meeks, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, along with Brad Sherman, John Garamendi and Don Beyer introduced a Joint Resolution of Disapproval on Wednesday, shortly before lawmakers left Washington to return home ahead of midterm elections. A vote could come in November, after the midterms.

Without a two-thirds vote, President Donald Trump could veto Meeks’ bill and the nuclear deal would take effect as it is written.

The nuclear deal, known as a 123 agreement, paves the way for American industry to collaborate on tens of billions of dollars of nuclear energy projects in the kingdom in what the administration says is a sign of deepening ties between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia.

The agreement has raised concerns around the proliferation of technologies that could support a Saudi effort to weaponize nuclear energy, security experts and members of Congress have said.

The terms of the agreement break from the so-called “gold standard” for nuclear deals, by which countries allow international inspectors widespread access to facilities that could support nuclear development. Inspectors are also allowed access to undeclared sites — activities that could involve research that would contribute to nuclear energy.

The U.S.-Saudi deal instead includes a narrower agreement that would limit inspections, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, to only declared nuclear sites.

The text of the agreement, which has been released publicly by the administration, establishes a joint study between the two countries on the feasibility of an enrichment facility on Saudi Arabian soil. An additional study could open the door to enrichment of uranium of up to 20%.

Kelsey Davenport, the director for nonproliferation policy at the Arms Control Association who has reviewed the text, said that study was described “vaguely” in the signed agreement.

Enrichment to 20% “poses a more significant risk because enriching to that level constitutes the majority of work necessary to enrich to weapons-grade levels, or 90%,” Davenport said. “The United States has repeatedly, and rightly, raised concerns about Iran previously enriching to the 20 percent level.”

Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman, the kingdom’s de facto leader, has in the past said his government would seek a nuclear weapon if Iran managed to acquire one.

In its communication to Congress on Aug. 27, the Trump administration acknowledged the Crown Prince’s “concerning public statements.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, defending the deal in July, said that Saudi Arabia could have turned to an American adversary, like China or Russia, had the U.S. not been prepared to sign the nuclear agreement.

“We live in a new era,” he said. “There are competitors that we face, so we’ll have to adjust individual deals to that reality. We’re not the only show in town but we’re the best show in town. But we want to be, we want to make sure that it’s our companies they’re picking.”

In a letter to Rubio and Energy Secretary Chris Wright Wednesday, a group of lawmakers called for the administration to declassify two documents, or “side letters,” which the White House said were part of the deal but could not be released.

The lawmakers, which included Republican Sens. John Kennedy Louisiana and Rand Paul of Kentucky, called for their release, adding they were “aware of no precedent for classifying and withholding the side letters, particularly when the stated purpose is peaceful nuclear cooperation.”

A bill to strike down the Saudi deal, requiring a supermajority in the Republican-controlled Congress, is exceedingly unlikely. But lawmakers could also opt to pass a law that applies certain conditions to the nuclear agreement.