It's been claimed in an unsourced answer here that
It's an "H.R.". Meaning it's a "House Resolution". As such, the bill would not have any power in law. The domain of the foreign policy in the United States lies with the President of the United States, with advice and consent of the Senate.
The Constitution does not give the House of Representatives a role in shaping the foreign policy of the United States outside of its budgetary powers and the power to regulate commerce with foreign powers.
And extra claim in a comment by the answerer that even if were to pass the Senate etc.
In any case, it could be challenged (in court) on process because the House has no authority to initiate such sweeping diplomacy questions.
Is that really so? Are there any examples of bills on foreign policy that were found unconstitutional [by the courts] because they were initiated by the House of Representatives? (The bill in question involved withdrawing from a treaty, by the way. That in itself is in a constitutional grey area, IIRC--presidents have claimed they have that unilateral power, but it's not clear if nobody else has it--at least in terms of initiating a law like that.)
On a quick search, it appears to me that the Taiwan Relations Act was formally initiated by the House for instance. So that seems to contradict the quoted claim, at least in part. And the main purpose of the Act was to restrict the president from certain military options:
The TRA does not guarantee the U.S. will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, as its primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability", and "shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan".
One might argue that providing Taiwan with weapons is 'commerce', but YMMV. Anyhow, the final bit seems mandate a certain course of military deployments or at least of military capabilities, for foreign policy purposes.
So, in case the claim is wrong (and no laws were found unconstitutional on this basis--that the House initiated some foreign policy bill), are there more clear examples than the Taiwan Relations Act of laws that are not about commerce nor about budgetary matters but pertain to foreign policy and were initiated in the House or Representatives?