I think the issue is that it is technically correct that this bill wouldn't 'shut down' YouTube. There is no language in the bill that prohibits sharing of non copyright infringing videos on the internet.
However, the language of the bill would make a website like YouTube a practical impossibility. They wouldn't be able to keep their doors open because there would be too much overhead in complying with the new laws, and they would be under constant threat of being shut down tomorrow, because someone claimed infringement.
I sympathize that someone who really doesn't understand how websites work and how something like YouTube functions would not understand this distinction.
However, if you don't understand the technical details about this, you should have a hearing and defer to experts rather than asking a bunch of MPAA and RIAA lobbyists to write a bill for you. It is like asking a militant vegan to design your slaughterhouse.