He is incorrect (no matter how loudly or forcefully he asserts otherwise) because the definitions involved are very broad and vague, and are ruled upon without adequate due process. For example, there are plenty of circumstances one could imagine a judge ruling that reddit is "foreign site" based on the broad definitions in the actual language of the bills. Furthermore, the burden on enforcing the "blacklist" upon sites like reddit (which would be considered a search engine under the definition of the bill) would either be technically difficult and/or financially prohibitive. It also opens up whole new areas of liability for users and websites, while making services that comply with private rights of action requested by copyright holders and the copyright holders themselves immune from liability should their copyright claims be invalid.

When he was talking about liability he was referring to the liability of service providers that comply with copyright holders private rights of action. As in, reddit would not be liable for making a mistake or removing links from our site, which later turned out to be based on invalid copyright claims by private parties. Neither would copyright holders be liable for sending out fraudulent claims, as they have repeatedly and aggressively done under DMCA. The entire bill is designed to give maximum power and minimum responsibility to copyright holders. the unintended consequences and potential for abuse are potentially devastating. But he seemed to be talking very forcefully, so I guess we're just supposed to trust him on it.