Question: How much of a bailout did the Portuguese government receive?
About the article "Portugal", section "Government finance".

Candidate passages:
In May 2012 several EU officials reminded Greece, that no matter the outcome of the parliamentary elections, they had a choice to either  respect and follow the agreed debt rescue plan, with the needed requirement to approve the next round of €11.9bn fiscal austerity for the budget years 2013 and 2014 or  have the second bailout loan immediately cancelled, followed by an uncontrolled default and exclusion from the eurozone.
As all attempts to form a new government failed after the parliamentary elections in May, a new round of elections were scheduled for June.
The June election resulted in the formation of a new government that respected the initially-signed debt rescue plan and acknowledged the need to approve the planned fiscal austerity package for budget years 2013 and 2014.
The new government did, however, request that the Troika extend from 2015 to 2017 the deadline for the Greek government to be self-financed and no longer need to receive additional bailout funds.
The Troika will evaluate this request as part of a new analysis of the Greek economy's sustainability and of the current progress of the Greek government in following the initially agreed "debt rescue plan".
The report is expected to be published in September 2012.
The Troika decided to withhold the scheduled €31.5bn disbursement for August, pending the outcome of the status report and the political developments in Greece.
If the report finds, that Greece did not deliver any progress on the agreed path outlined in the bailout plan, the second bailout loan will most likely get cancelled.
If the report finds, that serious progress was made, but that certain unforeseen factors justify a prolonged deadline for Greece to restore the fiscal balance, a revision of the second bailout loan will most probably be granted.
It is already rumoured, that a 2-year extension of the deadline, will require the Troika to expand the bailout package with an extra €20bn to Greece.
The Troika report is however still to get published, before IMF or EU will even start to consider stating any official opinion about revision proposals, and/or decide if the second bailout loan shall be cancelled due to an insufficient amount of progress for Greece in the attempt to follow the earlier agreed bailout plan. 
On 20 May, the IMF approved a €26 billion bailout for Portugal as part of joint support mechanisms with the EU.
Of the total €6.1 billion would be made available immediately. 
Claims that oversight has not been effective.
Government officials overseeing bailout don't know how it's being spent.
A December 31, 2008 Associated Press article stated, "Government officials overseeing a $700 billion bailout have acknowledged difficulties tracking the money and assessing the program's effectiveness."
A January 29, 2009 article from bloomberg.com stated, "Bloomberg News asked the Treasury Department Jan. 26 to disclose what securities it backed over the past two months in a second round of actions to prop up Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup Inc. Department spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Jan. 27 she would seek an answer.
None had been provided by the close of business yesterday."
Under Section 4(a), a covered jurisdiction may seek an exemption from coverage via a process called "bailout."
To achieve this, a covered jurisdiction must request and obtain a declaratory judgment from a 3-judge panel of the District Court for the District of Columbia that the jurisdiction is eligible to bail out.
As originally enacted, a covered jurisdiction was eligible to bail out if it had not used a test or device with a discriminatory purpose or effect during the 5 years preceding its bailout request.
Therefore, a jurisdiction that requested to bail out in 1967 it would have needed to prove that it had not misused a test or device since at least 1962.
Until 1970, this effectively required a covered jurisdiction to prove that it had not misused a test or device since before the Act was enacted five years earlier in 1965, making it impossible for many covered jurisdictions to bail out.
However, Section 4(a) also prohibited covered jurisdictions from using tests or devices in any manner, discriminatory or otherwise; hence, under the original Act, a covered jurisdiction would become eligible for bailout in 1970 by simply complying with this requirement.
But in the course of amending the Act in 1970 and 1975 to extend the special provisions, Congress also extended the period of time that a covered jurisdiction must not have misused a test or device to 10 years and then to 17 years, respectively.
These extensions continued the effect of requiring jurisdictions to prove that they had not misused a test or device since before the Act's enactment in 1965.
In 1982, Congress amended Section 4(a) to make bailout easier to achieve in two ways.
First, Congress provided that where a state is covered in its entirety, local governments in that state may separately bail out.
Second, Congress liberalized the eligibility criteria by replacing the 17-year requirement with a new standard, allowing a covered jurisdiction to bail out by proving that in the 10 years preceding its bailout request that: The jurisdiction did not use a test or device with a discriminatory purpose or effect; No court determined that the jurisdiction denied or abridged the right to vote based on racial or language minority status; The jurisdiction complied with the preclearance requirement; The federal government did not assign federal examiners to the jurisdiction; The jurisdiction abolished discriminatory election practices; and The jurisdiction took affirmative steps to eliminate voter intimidation and expand voting opportunities for protected minorities.
In addition, the jurisdiction must produce evidence of minority registration and voting rates, including how these rates have changed over time and in comparison to the registration and voting rates of the majority.
If the court determines that the covered jurisdiction is eligible for bailout, it will enter a declaratory judgment in the jurisdiction's favor.
The court will retain jurisdiction for the following 10 years and may order the jurisdiction back into coverage if the jurisdiction subsequently engages in voting discrimination.
The 1982 amendment to the bailout eligibility standard went into effect on August 5, 1984.
Between this date and 2013, 196 jurisdictions bailed out of coverage through 38 bailout actions; in each instance, the Attorney General consented to the bailout request.
Between August 5, 1984 and 2009, all jurisdictions that bailed out were located in Virginia.
In 2009, a municipal utility jurisdiction in Texas bailed out after the Supreme Court's opinion in "Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No.
1 v. Holder" (2009), which held that local governments that do not register voters have the ability to bail out.
After this ruling, jurisdictions succeeded in at least 20 bailout actions before the Supreme Court held in "Shelby County v. Holder" (2013) that the coverage formula was unconstitutional.
Separate provisions allow a covered jurisdiction that has been certified to receive federal observers to bail out of its certification alone.
Under Section 13, the Attorney General may terminate the certification of a jurisdiction if 1) more than 50% of the jurisdiction's minority voting age population is registered to vote, and 2) reasonable cause to believe that persons may experience voting discrimination no longer exists.
Alternatively, the District Court for D.C. may order the certification terminated. 
A bailout is a colloquial term for giving a loan to a company or country which faces serious financial difficulty or bankruptcy.
It may also be used to allow a failing entity to fail gracefully without spreading contagion.
A bailout can, but does not necessarily, avoid an insolvency process.
In the US, Title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code governs insolvencies, which fall under Chapter 11, for businesses, Chapter 13, for humans, and Chapter 9, for municipalities.
The term is maritime in origin being the act of removing water from a sinking vessel using a smaller bucket.
A bailout differs from the term bail-in (coined in the 2010s) under which the bondholders and/or depositors of global systemically important financial institutions (G-SIFIs) are forced to participate in the process, but taxpayers supposedly are not.
The US government in Washington sometimes participates in the insolvency process, as it did in the General Motors Chapter 11 reorganization of 2009-2013.