Can Kamala Harris neuter Moscow Mitch?

Could this be true:

Party leaders derive their power from the Senate's precedents, not its Standing Rules. Of the forty-four rules, only ten mention the majority and minority leaders. And those ten rules do not grant the leaders any real power vis-à-vis the rank-and-file…
Under the rules, all senators are essentially equal. That is, no senator is more powerful than another. However, the majority leader is clearly considered to be the most powerful senator today. This perception is based on his ability to make motions to proceed to legislation and nominations and to fill the so-called amendment tree (i.e. offer the maximum allowable number of amendments to legislation to block senators from offering their own amendments). Both are based on his ability to be recognized first by the Senate's Presiding Officer { soon to be Vice President Harris}. But the leader's preferential recognition and, by extension, his ability to make motions to proceed to bills and nominees and his ability to fill the amendment tree, are grounded only in precedent.

So does this mean VP Harris could break with tradition of preferential recognition and allow any Senator to bring the House's bill up for debate and vote? While it wont change GOP votes, it will force them to vote down popular reforms rather than avoid such votes. And can it force a vote on Biden's nominees? If this is true, why didn't Biden force a vote on Garland when Joe was VP?

I am offering this up to the Kos community in hope of a vigorous debate so I can figure out if this is real and useful for undermining McConnell's stranglehold if the runoffs don't go our way. Thanks

UPDATE: Looking at the debate, I guess this is my question boiled down:

The Constitution designates that the VP will preside over the Senate. What does it mean to preside over the Senate? In Congress one asks to be recognized by the chair in order to speak. The VP as President of the Senate is designated by the Constitution as the chair, right? Since 1937, the VP by tradition has recognized the Majority Leader first in all cases, which effectively allows him to control the Senate. What happens if the Chair decides to ignore this precedent and recogniz4e other Senators first? Senate rules cannot remove a power granted by the Constitution. If "preside" does not mean recognize people to speak, what does it mean?