No, it wouldn't even make a dent. Remember, these are the servers which take 1/7 of the world's incorrectly spell web addresses we are talking about. Making users of Joe's Backwater Internet Movie Repository go there wouldn't make a hint of difference.
The main problem with this bill is simply how ineffective it will be. This is the 21st century; as demonstrated in the middle east, we can get the word out whenever we please about pretty much anything. They are trying to stop pirates by merely taking away a site's alias, while leaving plenty with knowledge of the actual site IP. If 4Chan were to have it's DNS revoked, it would be up and running again in a few hours as the IP is spread across the net like wildfire.
Meanwhile, it allows companies to stifle genuine competition very easily. For a pirate going to his favorite site, typing in a few digits is nothing. For a small business trying to gain customers suddenly disappearing off the face of the internet aside from an IP address no one would ever bother to look for, it would be nothing short of disastrous. And therein lies the largest problem with this bill: it is ineffectual at it's stated goal, while having a pretty bad impact when sites try to play dirty. And this can and will happen; it already has to some extent. A similar thing can be done on Google by reporting a site as an ad-farm. This has been used multiple times by multiple companies to completely remove their competition from the search results. Extend that beyond simple search results to hiding the entire website from DNS lookups and you have a massive flustercluck waiting to happen.