One of the Constitutional limits on the Congress is that any legislation relating to taxation or authorization for spending must "originate in the House of Representatives."

Quite naturally, this provision is subject to considerable manipulation via a couple of centuries of politics. In most cases bills are introduced, and "considered" nearly simulataneously in both Houses, although it's not strictly legal for the Senate version to be introduced ahead of the House introduction, although often a Senate "money bill" gets passed (or killed) before the House finishes their action on it.

Since by "House Rules" the Speaker of the House gets to select which bills are moved up for debate and ultimately for a vote in the House, (s)he has immense control over what gets done.

Moving a "controversial" issue up can completely stall House action on anything else about as effectively as the "Fillibuster" rule in the Senate, and virtually nothing can be considered in the House without approval from the "Speaker." Blocking action on something necessary by scheduling a controversial issue with no chance of passage is the House version of the extortion that the Senate accomplishes by the Fillibuster rule.

(Just an opinion, of course.)

John